Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Manufacturing Output

Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.

The Secretary of State for Trade, Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): The reduction of inflation is the precondition of renewed sustainable growth.

Mrs. Adams: Given that the second Tory recession is set to cost 550,000 manufacturing jobs and 100,000 companies and is set to put the United Kingdom at the bottom of the European Community league table on under-investment and employment in 1992, will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that urgent action is needed to boost employment in Britain to take us out of this situation? Will he also introduce training schemes to put the United Kingdom back where it was before we had a Tory Government and to take it out of this recession?

Mr. Lilley: The key to renewed growth is lower inflation, which in turn makes lower interest rates possible. The interest rates in this country are now down to their lowest differential with those on the continent that we have seen for many years. We certainly do not need higher taxes, a minimum wage and the restoration of trade union power, which would prolong the recession and abort a recovery.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I thank my right hon. Friend for responding so promptly to my request that either his good self or my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs should visit Nottingham. I understand that the Minister is planning to visit Raleigh Industries within the next 10 days. That company is the most famous cycle manufacturer in the world, but it is subject to the most unfair dumping of bicycles from China. I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to protect that most famous name in the industry.

Mr. Lilley: I recognise the powerful representations that my hon. Friend has made for industries in his constituency, and particularly the bicycle industry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will meet representatives of that industry when he visits Nottingham and will

discuss the problems with them. Anything that we can do within the context of European Community trade policy, we will do.

Mr. Gordon Brown: On top of the 2,300 jobs tragically lost at British Aerospace today, the textile and motor trade federations are now predicting 40,000 more job losses this year, the Building Trades Federation predicts that 50,000 more jobs will be lost this year, the Engineering Employers Federation predicts that 70,000 more jobs will be lost, and the Confederation of British Industry has said that 200,000 jobs will be lost in total unless Ministers take action. Has not the Government's last remaining friend, the Governor of the Bank of England, now extinguished the Government's last remaining claims to a pre-election recovery, and is it not the case that, having lost his support, the Government have now nothing left to lose but the election?

Mr. Lilley: I naturally regret the loss of jobs by British Aerospace and other companies, not least those in my constituency. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the press release from British Aerospace today began:
The aviation market continues to suffer from the world-wide recession".
The hon. Gentleman, however, continues to deny the existence of that recession, which makes a mockery of those who have lost their jobs as a result of it. British Aerospace has to reach world standards of productivity and efficiency, as it made clear in its press release. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to tell the House of the additional job losses that would follow if Labour's reckless defence cuts were superimposed on the problems already faced by the industry.
The Governor of the Bank of England said that there are firm indications of an upturn coming and that the basis of sustainable growth remains a credible commitment to the goal of price stability. The Labour party could never credibly offer that.

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the increase in manufacturing output between 1985 and 1990.

Mr. Lilley: Manufacturing output rose by nearly one fifth between 1985 and 1990.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom is fortunate to have a large proportion of world-beating, world-class companies? That is illustrated by Rolls-Royce, which has quadrupled its share of the jet engine market since 1987 and, even today, by the news of the British Aerospace section, which has a £13 billion per annum order book and in size is second only to that in the United States. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would not be nearly so many such companies if they had to put up with the economic and industrial policies of the Labour party?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to mention the strengths of those companies, even when they face difficulties in world markets, and to emphasise the difficulties that they would face at home if a Labour Government were adding to those problems. There has been a tremendous growth in exports in the aerospace industry, as in other industries. We welcome that and will do all we can to sustain and build on it in the future.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State confirm that bankruptcies and liquidations, affecting manufacturing as well as other industries, are at record levels not only in the south-east but particularly in Wales and Scotland? Will he also confirm that the fact that those bankruptcies and liquidations are occurring now in high-tech industries is a particularly worrying aspect? Does he agree that there is plenty of venture capital about, but that the venture capitalists do not have the confidence to know where to invest it? How will he instil confidence in the market so that investment in manufacturing industry can really start again?

Mr. Lilley: Confidence will not be instilled by harping solely on the negatives. Naturally we regret any rise in bankruptcies, but let us remember the strengths of British industry, which has increased exports in the past 10 years by more than France, Germany, the United States or Japan—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman does not like that answer because he wants to talk Britain down.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the motor manufacturing industry is one of the greatest providers of employment in this country? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that the company car is not a tax-avoidance weapon but an essential tool of British industry and that, if we are to have a strong home-based industry, we do not need taxes so high that Jaguar and Rolls-Royce lose money? If those companies cannot sell their products at home, and if the Government do not encourage them at home, people abroad will not be encouraged to buy them either.

Mr. Lilley: I have always shared with my hon. Friend a belief in the importance of manufacturing industry, particularly the motor car industry. Therefore, like him, I rejoice in the fact that in the last three months of last year the motor car industry earned a surplus on the balance of payments, and exports of motor cars rose by 55 per cent. I shall convey his point to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who also recognises the great importance of a strong and recovering motor car industry.

Dr. Moonie: I notice that the main question carefully ended with the date "1990". Why has manufacturing output fallen faster and further in Britain's economy than in those of any of our competitors in western Europe? Does the Minister not yet realise that the country needs action, not words?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should remember that manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government and that it is up under this Government. Compared with 10 years ago, at the same point in the economic cycle, output is up by nearly a quarter, investment is up by a third, manufacturing productivity is up by more than a half and manufacturing exports are up by nearly three quarters. That is a record to be proud of and to build on in the future.

Telecommunications

Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as a location for telecommunications headquarters of internationally mobile companies.

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): The United Kingdom is extremely attractive as a location for inward investment in the telecommunications industry. Recently, US West and IBM have announced that they are to move their business headquarters to the United Kingdom. One of the important characteristics of those moves was the support that it represented for British liberalisation policies. Many more companies will follow as investors.

Mr. Mans: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the Government will continue their policy of liberalisation in the telecommunications industry and continue to welcome foreign companies to compete on an equal basis in this country—provided that, in return, our companies can compete in those countries?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is exactly what the Government intend to do. We welcome all sorts of investors here on fair terms. Another feature that we welcome is that manufacturers are now investing here in the manufacture of equipment to supply the telecommunications industry because of the strength of the underlying service provision in this country. How much I welcome NEC, Motorola and the other companies, which make large numbers of mobile phones in this country in response to the strength of the cellular mobile phone market.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not strange that, while foreign companies invest in this country, British companies which are aware of the position here have invested £40 billion more overseas than the foreigners have invested here?

Mr. Redwood: Investment both ways is welcome because free trade and free investment flows increase world prosperity. I am delighted that enough large companies in this country have the profits to invest both here and abroad to bring more dividends and income into this country. It is a great testimony to this country that far more of the large, successful companies in Europe are based in Britain than in France or Germany.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the stunning improvement in telecommunications in this country in the past 12 years has been led by British Telecom? Will he confirm that not only has British Telecom invested—this is what the Opposition keep talking about—£20,000 million in new technology, but it has contributed no less than £1,000 million in corporation tax to the Exchequer?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. Much of the major investment in this country's telecommunications infrastructure in recent years has been from BT, which has made a much bigger contribution to the Exchequer than it did in the 1970s, as it is more efficient, more productive, sells more services, makes more money and pays more tax. That is true not just of BT—a large number of other investors are coming on to the market. Some £5 billion is pledged from the cable companies alone, which now have


20,000 telephone service customers. That is just the beginning. Many thousands more will follow. We offer choice, competition and more investment—how different from Opposition policies which would smash profits and investment, and return to a monopoly.

Steel Production

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the figures for steel production in the United Kingdom for the last two years for which figures are available.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): United Kingdom production of crude steel totalled 17·8 million tonnes in 1990 and 16·5 million tonnes in 1991.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that in Scotland we have gained the impression that while the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to have meetings about the industry—such as the one that he had yesterday with the shadow Secretary of State for Industry—the man with the real power in relation to the steel industry, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is not prepared to lift a finger to help secure a future for steel production in Scotland? Will the Minister answer one straight question? Is the Department of Trade and Industry prepared to do anything to help the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) to try to secure thin slab steel production in Scotland—or are we to be left entirely to the mercy of that virtual private monopoly, the British Steel Corporation?

Mr. Leigh: We would be happy to consider the prospects for thin slab steel production, but unfortunately there has been absolutely no commercial interest in such production. Those are the economic facts of life. As for the Government's position, we are investing £120 million to help the people and economy of north Lanarkshire, including £40 million from this Department. The hon. Gentleman asks what we intend to do. One could well direct that question to the Labour party. Will the Labour party nationalise, subsidise and force British Steel to keep the plant open? The Labour party should put up or shut up.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that British Steel's productivity woud be fatally crippled by Labour's absurd proposal to ban coal imports? Is he aware that 50 per cent. of imported coal goes directly to British Steel and that that coal is not currently available in the United Kingdom? Should not the Labour party occasionally pause and think before announcing ridiculous objectives which would cost so many British jobs?

Mr. Leigh: We are extremely worried about that proposal, which was no doubt drawn up on the back of an envelope. British Steel tells us that there is no viable United Kingdom source of metallurgical—grade coal—coking coal. It has to import 100 per cent. of that grade of coal and take advantage of world markets to buy from the cheapest source. The Labour party wants to stop British Steel importing that coal.
British Steel has trebled productivity since 1979. Does the Labour party want to return to the days when British Steel cost the taxpayer £8 billion or £16 billion in today's

money. The Opposition must withdrawn their policy, and do so today, or everyone will know what their policies mean for British Steel.

Mr. Salmond: Is the Minister aware that the case for expanded production and investment at the Dalzell plate mill in Lanarkshire is now backed by the Glasgow university study, the Scottish Office, the Scottish Trade Union Congress, the Scottish National party and Motherwell district council, all of whom believe that it is an outstanding plant, given the requisite investment, with a ready market for its enlarged product? Would the Minister be prepared to back such investment and expanded production, provided that the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is prepared to stop rubbishing the plant and its work force?

Mr. Leigh: There is every provision for market investment in this area. If the market wants to back such a scheme the market will back it.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that in the heady days of politician-directed industrial strategy in the 1970s Britain had a deficit on our steel trade of £1 billion per year and British Steel lost £16 billion during that decade, whereas now British Steel is the most efficient steel maker in Europe and we have a surplus on our steel trade of £1 billion per year? If Labour Members are so keen on Ravenscraig staying open, why does the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) not have the guts—or perhaps the influence in the shadow Cabinet—to give an unequivocal commitment that if the Labour party came to power it would keep Ravenscraig open?

Mr. Leigh: I see that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) is seeking to intervene. The whole House is waiting to hear what the Opposition's policy is. Will they subsidise? Will they nationalise? We want to know now.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the proposals for the expansion and development of the Dalzell works have been pursued for many years more consistently and vigorously by the Labour party than by any other party? Is he also aware that British Steel cannot go ahead with its plans for building a new plate mill on Teesside because of the depth of the recession into which the Government have plunged the country? Is he further aware that he is out of date about the commercial interest in thin slab production at Ravenscraig, which has been communicated to the Secretary of State for Scotland but not, apparently, to the Department of Trade and Industry?
Is the Minister aware that substantially lower steel production costs are being achieved by NUCOR with thin slab production in the United States? Will he confirm, in line with undertakings given at the time of privatisation, that he expects British Steel to consider offers for the sale of Ravenscraig on a commercial basis at opportunity cost—at a price which British Steel could expect to get for the plant on world markets?

Mr. Leigh: That was a very interesting academic lecture, but it was absolutely meaningless because I have already said that if there was a market for thin slab production we would welcome that. Once again, despite the smoke-screen, the hon. Gentleman has failed to answer the question to which everyone in Scotland wants an


answer. Will Labour subsidise Ravenscraig? Will it nationalise it? Will it force British Steel to keep it open? The Opposition refused to answer that in the recent debate, and they have refused to answer it again today. Their only guiding light is ambition for office, and they refuse to tell the people of Scotland what their policy is. That is disgraceful.

Hosiery and Knitwear

Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken in the last six months to protect hosiery and knitwear manufacturers from dumped third-world imports.

Mr. Redwood: The United Kingdom Government will pursue vigorously with the EC authorities any dumping cases brought to our attention. In this industry, none has been brought in the past six months. Last year, under different provisions, a temporary ban was imposed on Chinese underwear imports to stop a temporary surge.

Sir John Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that up to 500,000 jobs in Britain depend on having a sensible, controlled market, and that discipline and control of third world dumped imports can be brought about only if we have a sensible GATT regime? Will my hon. Friend please encourage my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to press to ensure that we have the protection of a new GATT structure as soon as possible?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has my full assurance. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade are dedicated to pursuing sensible GATT solutions to these problems. The Government fully recognise the importance of the industry that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, (Sir J. Farr) so ably represents, and we want proper GATT disciplines for fair trading in this as in other sectors. I hope that our partners in the world economy and the European Community will assist our efforts to achieve speedy resolution of the GATT discussions.

Mr. Cryer: How is it that at the British yarn show held recently in Leicester the chairman of Benson Turner, a firm of spinners in my constituency and an efficient and well-organised company, complained that the Department of Trade and Industry shows inertia and indifference when the industry submits complaints about illegal subsidies and dumping? The chairman called on the Department to take action about those complaints because if it did not do so there would be little industry left to take action about.

Mr. Redwood: I can promise that the Department will take vigorous action where there are good cases. I am advised that no cases came to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in the past six months. The hon. Gentleman should represent his constituents by writing a letter with specific complaints. We shall then take action to follow it through with the EC authorities.

Mr. Andy Stewart: My hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work in the knitwear industry and are grateful for the steps already taken by the Government. Does he agree that they are at greater risk not from imports but from the minimum wage, which would devastate the knitwear industry?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. The proposals of the Labour party, and some of the proposals in the Maastricht social protocol, would be deeply damaging to the industry. We do not want to see those jobs destroyed. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might like to remember that in the polyester yarn sector, which is not covered by the question, there are anti-dumping suits going on, so we are pursuing the cases of which we are aware.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that it is not true that there have been no notifications of dumping in the past six months? Is he aware of the work that the Scottish Knitwear Council has been doing with departmental officials showing that in 1990 a total of 123,000 knitted garments in cashmere coming from China were dumped over the quota agreed? What action is the Department taking to seek compensation and redress so that the overshipments in 1991 and this year are stopped forthwith?

Mr. Redwood: The question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) was specific. It asked about six months in a limited industry, and I gave an accurate answer on that. There have been cases in cashmere relating to an earlier period and we are pursuing those actively with the EC authorities. We have to ask whether there was some failure in the mechanism of the quota arrangements, and whether they can be adjusted or whether there needs to be some compensation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is actively pursuing that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making slow progress. In fairness to those whose questions come further down the Order Paper, I propose now to speed up a bit.

Post Office

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the Post Office's negative external financing limit for the year 1992–93.

Mr. Leigh: A negative external financing limit of £66 million has been set for the Post Office for the year 1992–93.

Mr. Hain: Since 1979, the Post Office has contributed more than £1 billion in negative external financing limit payments, at 1991 prices, cutting back on investment and milking the customer. Would it not be far better for the Government to end these punitive and ridiculous double tax payments—the Post Office already pays corporation tax—thus allowing it to concentrate on improving the quality of service to customers rather than pursuing abolition of the second delivery in towns and putting restrictions on rural services such as insisting that people have letter boxes at the bottom of their gardens or, in some cases, making people go to village centres for their letters? Should not the priority be investment to improve the quality of services?

Mr. Leigh: Let us put the matter into perspective. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I am only trying to answer the question. We are talking about an organisation which has a turnover of £4 billion. It is not unreasonable that, from


that, it should give its only shareholder—the Government—a dividend of £65 million per year. If we did not require that dividend, which is spent on hospitals, schools and much else, we would be able to cut only about 1p off the 24p cost of a first-class stamp. This year, the Post Office has a £340 million capital investment programme. The first and second-class delivery services have shown a marked improvement over the past two or three years. The Post Office is a successful and profitable organisation, and I hope that the Opposition wish it to remain so.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rural sub-post office is at the heart of the rural community and that it plays an essential role in west Norfolk? Will he do what he can to ensure that as many Government services as possible are available at post offices? For example, why cannot every rural sub-post office have a vehicle relicensing facility?

Mr. Leigh: We are anxious to protect the rural post office network and one of the main purposes of the citizens charter is, through the process of competition, to improve quality and choice within the constraints of an affordable uniform tariff. Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friend, who represents a rural constituency, that we have very much in mind the needs of rural post offices and we shall look with interest at any requests that they make to us for extending their liability to sell other services.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that it is feared in rural areas that a move towards privatisation would lead to services that require subsidies being axed, which would be a body blow to those rural areas and their opportunities for economic development? Can he give any assurance about the future of such services in rural areas?

Mr. Leigh: I have already given such an assurance. I have said that the Government are committed to the maintenance of the uniform tariff structure, about which people in rural areas are concerned. That is the commitment that we have given and by which we stand.

Mucking Flats

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to visit Mucking Flats in south-east Essex, to discuss industrial growth in the area.

Mr. Lilley: I shall read this answer with particular care. I have no plans at present to visit Mucking Flats.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, thanks to the Government's progressive policies in privatising the electricity industry, that area of south-east Essex deserves a visit because methane produced by all the muck that comes out of London is being dumped at Mucking Flats, converted into electricity and sold to the national grid, thanks to the enterprise of Cory's, which is in my constituency? Is he further aware that, just up the road from Mucking Flats at Shell Haven, Shell and Mobil are planning to turn their spare gas into electricity? Does not that show that when we introduce private enterprise we turn muck into brass?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend offers me an enticing invitation which I shall consider taking up. This is an interesting plan and I am delighted that my Department has been able to offer a grant to help it. We want to see the

environmentally friendly development of electricity. I understand that this scheme will be able to light up a town of about 30,000 people, just as my hon. Friend can today, almost single-handedly, light up her constituency.

Recession

Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from businesses in the north-west concerning the effects of the recession in industry.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend receives considerable correspondence about the state of northwestern business.

Mr. Orme: Will the Minister confirm that since 1979 there has been a 37 per cent. reduction in manufacturing industry in the north-west—a larger proportion than in any other region in the United Kingdom—that last year 16,800 jobs in the manufacturing and engineering industries were lost and that, unfortunately, we foresee more jobs being lost as a result of the statement made by British Aerospace today? Faced with those facts, what action will the Government take? Why do they stand aside as British manufacturing industry is reduced, whereas our main competitors in other countries support their industries?

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend set out the Government's policies some time ago in a clear document that was fully backed by the CBI, which believes that we have the right policies to improve our competitiveness and to take advantage of lower inflation and of business conditions around the world as they improve. In the 1980s, north-western output expanded, as it did nationwide. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that manufacturing output was up by more than one fifth, and productivity, investment, and exports by much more impressive figures. The CBI stated recently that matters will improve and the Bank of England says that the leading indicator measures point firmly to an upturn in output in 1992.

Sir Peter Blaker: As to British Aerospace, will my hon. Friend give a firm assurance that the Government will continue vigorously to support exports of military aircraft—something which is strongly opposed by many Opposition Members? What is the Government's attitude to Labour's proposal for a defence diversification agency, bearing in mind that if it were so easy to create jobs through a Government agency, it is surprising that Labour has always left behind more unemployed than when it took office.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend is right. The Government will offer all assistance under our policies and programmes to help British Aerospace to export its products. After all, it is orders that businesses need to provide jobs and to guarantee employment. The large defence cuts that Labour proposes would be ruinous to job prospects, and its ham-fisted intervention plans would not work. It would not be easy to effect the transition that Labour suggests by Government sleight of hand. What is required is careful business planning by the managers and directors of the companies concerned.

Mr. Hoyle: Yes, but if the Minister will come into the real world, he will find that redundancies are still occurring. Many of the redundancies at British Aerospace involve white-collar workers, including professional engineers—many of whom are graduates. What future will they have in the recession that continues under the present Government?

Mr. Redwood: The worldwide recession will lift. It is doing so in many parts of the world, and that provides export and job opportunities. Skilled people always have opportunities ahead of them, and I am sure that they will continue to do so under this Government, who have the right economic policies. Those opportunities would be wrecked by the Opposition's policies for commerce and industry.

Deregulation Unit

Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the work of his Department's deregulation unit.

Mr. Redwood: The Government have a strong programme of deregulatory work. I will announce shortly the work programme for the coming year. Removing or reducing burdens on business is vital to successful enterprise policies.

Mr. Hague: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work so far. Does he agree that minimising the regulatory burden on business is a worthy objective for any Government? Would not it be a disaster for business throughout the country suddenly to be confronted by a long list of new regulations and constraints? I refer to social audits, contract compliance agencies, work force monitoring, compulsory disclosure of information, minimum wages, equality tribunals and many other Opposition ideas.

Mr. Redwood: That is a forbidding and worrying list for all business people. One of this country's great strengths is that the burdens imposed by the Government on employing people are much lighter than in France and Germany. That is why we enjoy higher inward investment compared with those two countries. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen think that that is amusing. They do not understand the importance of keeping costs under control, and of making sure that the Government do not impede enterprise.

Mr. Flynn: As an apostle of deregulation, will the Minister investigate why British Transport Advertising has banned British Medical Association advertising that seeks to discourage smoking by young people when, at the same time, the tobacco industry spends £300 million on advertising—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we need visual aids.

Mr. Redwood: I do not see how I can answer the question as I could not see properly the document that the hon. Member was waving.

Mr. Speaker: We proceed here by speech, not by visual aids.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my hon. Friend confirm that when he announces new proposals for deregulation he will

ensure that he and his officials have consulted the Minister for small businesses to see that every effort is made to take into account the needs of small businesses and that deregulation, wherever possible, is increased, so that small businesses can get special exemptions where possible from what can be very complicated regulations and procedures that the Government introduce?

Mr. Redwood: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Much practice in the past year or two has reflected just that process, after a good deal of consultation with small businesses. They have been exempted from certain reporting requirements by my Department under the companies legislation, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a lot of measures in last year's Budget to improve the position of small businesses, because tax is revealed to be one of their most noticeable problems when they reply to our consultations.

Ms. Mowlam: When the Minister reviews the business regulations will he consider extending that review to the regulation of financial institutions, in view of the problems with the collapse of Guinness III and the potential collapse of Guinness II, and in view of the serious difficulty with fraud regulation at present, particularly now that only three people will be going to gaol for a shorter time than the whole of the Guinness trial was taken, with one of them, Mr. Ernest Saunders, whose sentence was reduced because of ill health, on the national media this morning in blooming health and protesting his innocence?

Mr. Redwood: I do not intend to comment on individual cases before the courts. The general principle of the Government's policy is clear: we will ensure that people who commit fraud and swindles are brought to book through the courts. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently made statements, and was on the radio this morning, about the review that he is conducting of how court procedures can be improved. The House can rest assured that the Government will take every action possible to bring villains to book. We will not tolerate them.

Recession

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the long-term effects of the recession in industry.

Mr. Lilley: British industry is well placed to grow as we recover from the recession.

Mr. Clelland: Does the Secretary of State recall that in the last recession under this Government the collapse of manufacturing industry was said to be making it leaner and fitter to face the future? Ten years on, and having lost more than 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the northern region alone, manufacturing is faced with yet another recession, only this time, far from leanness and fitness, it is faced with malnutrition and is dangerously near the point of no return. With 6,000 manufacturing jobs being lost every week and 1,000 businesses a week going under, what action does he intend to take before more of our industrial capacity is lost altogether?

Mr. Lilley: We are used to the Labour party believing that it can talk up its support by talking the country down.


The hon. Member believes that he should talk down his own region and constituency. I notice that the Newcastle Journal has the headline
"North-East bucks the trend with firms taking on more workers", and I am sure that the hon. Member will be delighted that Vickers in his constituency, making the new tank, has excellent opportunities at home and export prospects abroad. They would be helped by, and I am sure that they would welcome, a positive, upbeat statement from the hon. Member about the revived and renewed prospects for the north-east, which has been transformed not least by inward investment which is threatened by the Front Bench of the Labour party.

Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the shadow Chancellor recently visited the James Halstead group in my constituency—it employs more than 400 people and is successful in making good profits—he expressed satisfaction to the local media that most of the technology that he saw was British-made and that most of it had been made 20 miles from Bury? Would it not be a good idea if the Opposition actually trumpeted these successes in the British manufacturing industry instead of moaning and complaining and doing British industry down?

Mr. Lilley: Absolutely. I noticed that this did not feature in their party political broadcast, wrongly entitled "Made in Britain" and alleging that virtually nothing was made in Britain, when we not only have the successes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) in his constituency but export far more television sets than we import and make the best hi-fi in the world, and when one in ten personal computers sold in the world are made in this country—in Scotland.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since the beginning of 1990, manufacturing investment has fallen by 35 per cent? Will he tell the House why he has rejected the CBI's call for investment incentives and investment strategies?

Mr. Lilley: The CBI urges people not to take a short-term view, as the hon. Gentleman does in considering only a 12-month period. If we take a 10-year view, we see that manufacturing investment is up by a third in comparison with a similar part of the same cycle. I believe that, as we come out of the recession, we shall find that British industry is much stronger than it was during the same period at the beginning of the 1980s, and that it will prosper mightily during the remainder of the 1990s.

"199?" Hotline

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries the "199?" hotline has received from small businesses in Essex.

Mr. Leigh: Nationally, calls for January this year have been over 50 per cent. higher than the corresponding period last year, and nearly 120 per cent. higher than in December 1991. Calls to the single market hotline are not necessarily recorded on a geographical basis.

Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that, next month, my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and I shall be visiting the European Commission and Parliament—not only to tell Mr. Delors

that he cannot have all the money that he is asking from the British people, but to create business opportunities for our constituents? Does my hon. Friend agree that Basildon, the finest town in the country, is strategically placed to take full advantage of the single market? Of course, my hon. Friend's hotline is available to help my constituents with their inquiries.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend always speaks out powerfully for Basildon: he has done so for the past eight years, and I have no doubt that he will do so for the next eight.
Basildon is indeed well placed to take advantage of the single market, but it is important for companies to be well prepared. It is therefore extremely encouraging that, only this morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the 250,000th call on the single market hotline—and he could give the answer to the caller's question.

Telephone Repairs

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will indicate the nature and range of discussions he has had with OFTEL on the length of time customers have had to wait to have their telephones repaired; what changes in waiting time there have been in the last seven years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Redwood: The Government and the Director General of Telecommunications frequently discuss telecommunications policy issues. Ninety-nine per cent. of faults are now repaired in two working days, compared with 87 per cent. in 1985. My hon. Friend may remember that, in 1980, a quarter of a million people had been waiting for more than two months for telephones to be connected. Seven days—a week—is a long time to wait for a telephone service nowadays.

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that our policy of privatisation and the liberalisation of the telecommunications industry has led to lower prices and a better quality of service for the consumer? In the light of that, and of the answer that he has just given, would he care to contrast our policy with that of the Labour party?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right: our policies have been most successful in achieving higher-quality service and lower-priced telephone calls. How welcome that is. Labour's policies, which are partly monopoly and partly over-regulatory, and aim to damage the industry's profits and investments, could only make matters worse. Quality would deteriorate and people would have less choice and therefore a less good service.

Mr. Dalyell: Given the position of such firms as Motorola at Bathgate do the Government recognise that what such firms really want is infrastructure, and that local authorities should be helped to provide it?

Mr. Redwood: All kinds of infrastructure are being provided, both through the expenditure of public moneys under programmes organised by, for instance, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, and through the provision of large amounts of private-sector capital in the case of such matters as telecommunications infrastructure. The big surge in investment has been possible only because of the


liberalisation policies pursued by the Government. It is being backed up by road programmes and by railway and other investment.

Companies (Government Intervention)

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from industrialists urging the Government directly to intervene in the strategic direction and management of companies.

Mr. Lilley: The CBI report "Competing with the World's Best" rejected the notion that Government could or should
be in the business of picking winers, or of engaging in direct intervention in the strategic direction and management of companies".

Mr. Riddick: Yet is that not exactly what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and his hon. Friends are advocating, through the establishment of a national investment bank and a host of other measures—despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman has never done a day's work in industry in his life? Clearly, the British people do not want a return to the failed interventionist, socialist policies of the 1960s and 1970s—and that is another reason why Labour will be defeated at the next general election.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is extraordinary that only last week the Leader of the Opposition confirmed that the Labour party is still wedded to bodies such as the national enterprise board, despite the fact that, of the 102 companies in which that body invested, about 35 went bust, 38 were sold at a loss and only the remainder managed even to return taxpayers' money.

Mr. Graham: Will the Secretary of State have some regard for companies like Lawtex, a firm in my constituency that went into liquidation, resulting in the loss of 120 jobs? Six months later, those people are still waiting for their redundancy payments. Why are the Government sitting on their backsides and failing to see that they are paid now?

Mr. Lilley: With regard to the example that the hon. Gentleman has given, if there is any question of the law of the land not being obeyed I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to look into it.

Development and Assisted Area Status (Devon)

Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will reconsider the boundaries for development and assisted-area status in Devon.

Mr. Leigh: The Government intend to conduct a full review of the assisted areas—for all of Great Britain—early in the next Parliament.

Mr. Speller: After the general election, will my hon. Friend give priority to consideration of rather more remote areas, like Ilfracombe, Barnstaple or South Molton that have rural or coastal connections? Should not the Government be considering places where rail and air communications are poor and where the reduction in the defence programme is causing employment problems?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is a very effective constituency Member. I know that he lobbies hard on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, he has already brought two delegations to see me. I am aware of his constituency's problems, and I promise that as soon as this review is held we shall urgently consider them. He spoke generally of the problems of rural areas and less-favoured areas. It is interesting that since I have been the Minister responsible for regional policy, regional spending has increased from £506 million in 1990 to £534 million in 1991–92. That shows an elementary fact of political science: that when one becomes a Minister one does the opposite of what one previously promised.

Environmental Technology Innovation Scheme

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will increase the level of expenditure on the environmental technology innovation scheme.

Mr. Lilley: Although there has been a good response so far to the environmental technology innovation scheme, there are no plans to increase the current allocation of £12 million.

Mr. Banks: Given the nature of the tasks facing industry, that seems a rather small amount of money. Is any of it used to find alternatives to CFCs in the manufacture of refrigerators, foam, and so on? I assume that the Minister is aware that 750,000 tonnes of CFCs are used in the world every year and that that has resulted in an ozone layer hole as large as Alaska. What are the Government doing to further alternative technologies?

Mr. Lilley: We believe that this scheme will attract considerable sums of private money for the development of such technologies. We believe that small and medium-sized companies, which tend to be the most innovative, will be persuaded to develop new technologies and that that investment will result in considerable leverage. About 280 applications have already been received. I am not sure whether any of them cover the technology that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but, like him, I recognise the importance of solving the problem and hope that, by this scheme or otherwise, solutions will be found.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating staff at the university of Kent and the two commercial pharmaceutical companies with whom the university is combining in a venture called "Viridian", which is a programme of environmental biotechnology based entirely on bacteria that are naturally available? Under that programme, they have been able to demonstrate ways of breaking up many dangerous industrial wastes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that there is scope, through a range of Government and quasi-government bodies, to encourage action beyond what can be done with direct Government money?

Mr. Lilley: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who are involved in this research. I recently had the privilege of opening the display on biotechnology in George street. This is a subject in which Britain has a lead over the rest of Europe and much of the


world. We want to strengthen that lead, as we believe that it is in the interests of British industry, British science and the world environment.

Overseas Investment

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of overseas investment in the European Community is made in Britain.

Mr. Leigh: According to the latest information published in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economic outlook, December 1990, in 1988–89 the United Kingdom had a nearly 40 per cent. share of the total inward foreign direct investment in the EC.

Mr. Arnold: Is not the significance of that reply that in a Community of Twelve, investment in this country is as much as that in the other Eleven put together? Is not that the most telling argument as to the comparative economic strength of this country?

Mr. Leigh: Yes, of course it is. The fact that this country is the No. 1 location for inward investment in Europe shows that the international business community has confidence in our policies. What the House wants to know is whether the international business community has confidence in the policies of the Labour party. We keep asking questions about the Opposition's investment plans: how much they intend to give to the British Technology Group, regional development agencies and investment trusts. There was a Department of Trade and Industry Question Time last month and a debate last week, but the Opposition did not answer those questions. Seven Labour Members are sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that one of them will stand up now and give the answers, because the whole House wants to know.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does not the Minister understand that the simple reason for inward investment in Britain has nothing to do with the Government's activities? The Governments of countries such as Germany and France invest in their own industries. The difference is that, far from investing in our own industry, the Government of this country is slaughtering it. Then they have to send Ministers like that youngster around the world with a begging bowl to get other industries to come in to repair the damage that they have done.

Mr. Leigh: Now at last we see the true face of the Labour party on inward investment. The Trades Union Congress has called this alien. I want an answer from one of the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench about their views on inward investment. We now have companies such as Fujitsu in the north-east of England, Nissan in the north-east of England and Toyota in Derbyshire bringing wealth into this country and improving our manufacturing competitiveness. What is the attitude of the Labour party towards inward investment? Do the Opposition favour it or reject it?

Manufacturing Output

Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received about manufacturing output.

Mr. Lilley: I have received the recent excellent report by the CBI's manufacturing advisory group which showed that there has been a transformation in manufacturing performance during the 1980s.

Mr. McMaster: With output in the construction industry falling to its lowest level for six years and the industry predicting a further 50,000 job losses this year, when will the Secretary of State stop his policy paralysis and start listening to people in industry who know what they are talking about? Will he now start an emergency investment programme? When will the Secretary of State stop attacking good advice and start attacking the recession?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman surely realises that the key to success in that industry is lower interest rates and that the key to lower interest rates is lower inflation. All the policies that the hon. Gentleman and his party advocate would move us in exactly the opposite direction.

Mr. Batiste: Is my right hon. Friend aware that constituencies such as mine in Leeds have been very considerable beneficiaries of investment in a wide range of different industries? For example, this year alone we shall see the commissioning of chemical and textile plants. We are beneficiaries to the extent of a 20 per cent. reduction in unemployment since the time of the last general election. What those industries fear more than anything else is interference by the Government and the European Commission, interference in the choice of products that they can make, interference in the work patterns that they can enjoy and interference in their wage rates. The more successful my right hon. Friend is in resisting that interference, the greater will be the level of investment in this country.

Mr. Lilley: Everything that my hon. Friend says is echoed by the business men I meet. They know that the greatest damage would be done to this economy by raising taxes, by imposing a minimum wage and by restoring artificial trade union powers. They do not want it. They reject it. They are determined that we continue with the strategy which, as the Confederation of British Industry says, has restored the health of manufacturing industry and revived the strength of the British economy during the 1980s.

Industrial Policy

Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to discuss industrial policy.

Mr. Lilley: I next plan to meet representatives of the northern region CBI later this month to discuss a range of business matters.

Mr. Redmond: Does the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are progressing speedily but the Minister has answered Question 21. We are on Question 20.

Mr. Lilley: I meet representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce from time to time to discuss a range of policies.

Mr. Redmond: Does the Secretary of State accept that people living in the real world question the Government's industrial policy? In fact, the Government have had no industrial policy since being elected in 1979. The people are sick and tired of seeing on the television, hearing on the radio and seeing in the press the fairy stories that the Secretary of State keeps preaching from the Dispatch Box. Does the Secretary of State accept that we should have an industrial policy that is beneficial to Britain so that we can meet the challenge of the 21st century?

Mr. Lilley: I read earlier the CBI's rejection of any policy in which the Government tried to pick winners, determine strategic investments and interfere in the decisions of business. That is the sort of industrial policy that industry does not want. Industry wants low inflation, a consequent reduction in interest rates, competition, open markets, a successful GATT round and completion of the European single market at the end of this year. We will provide that.

Points of Order

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that Question Time is an opportunity for Back Benchers and others to ask questions of Ministers and for Ministers to give substantive answers. Today we have not had answers from the Ministers. All we have had is party political polemics. Do you, Mr. Speaker, have any power to instruct Ministers to earn their money—they are paid substantial amounts—and answer the questions on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I have no such power.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who have been here throughout Question Time and have questions on the Order Paper were satisfied with the answers given by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We recognise that it is impossible for everyone to be called, including myself, although I had hoped that my question would be reached.

Mr. Speaker: When we have a full hour, I try to reach at least Question 20. We managed to achieve that today.
I think that every hon. Member who wished to sign the book for the ballot has now done so, and I should like to draw it.

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you find time to make it clear to Ministers that, if Opposition Front Bench Members were to rise to the taunts that we have heard often today to answer questions, give the Labour party's policy and so on, you would be forced to rule such interventions out of order? They are not here to answer questions. The Government are here to defend their policy, however inadequate they are at doing so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with one at a time. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) and I have been in the House about the same length of time. Over the numerous elections in which he and I have taken part, I have noticed a tendency for this sort of thing to happen.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not in order for

Opposition Front Bench Members to put their policies into the form of questions? If they had any faith in their policies, they would do so.

Mr. Speaker: I have already told the House that I am not responsible for the content of answers, as long as they are in order. I should now like to draw the ballot.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Happy birthday—all right.

Mr. Skinner: There have been occasions when there has been a waste of time during Question Time and you have allowed a little extra time. On this occasion, you were obviously not aware of what happened, but the baby-faced Minister—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the one with the Pampers on—could not count beyond 20 and we lost two valuable minutes. I think that you should add those on.

Mr. Speaker: The trouble was that he did count beyond 20.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having heard the Opposition constantly denigrating British industry, we were trying to get in to point out that we should help industry by encouraging the brightest and best, not by crying stinking fish as the Opposition do.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise how the procedure might be reconsidered under which questions must be tabled two weeks in advance. We have seen the disadvantage of that today in that it is not possible directly to raise the 3,000 job losses at Gateway, the 2,000 redundancies at Rover and the 2,000 redundancies at British Aerospace. Events are moving so fast that 2,000 businesses have gone bust since these questions were tabled.

Mr. Speaker: This is a clear extension of Question Time. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that there are opportunities to put such questions to the Leader of the House during business questions on Thursday.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 28 FEBRUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Browne
Mr. Ken Hargreaves
Mr. Henry Bellingham

Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure to every person within the United Kingdom the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and its protocols, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and certain other rights and freedoms; to ensure that there are effective remedies before the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom for breaches of these fundamental rights and freedoms; to give such fundamental rights and freedoms the same precedence and priority within the legal systems of the United Kingdom as are given to enforceable Community rights under section 2(1) and (4) of the European Communities Act 1972; to establish a United Kingdom Human Rights Commission with power to initiate legal proceedings for the protection of these fundamental rights and freedoms and to give advice and assistance concerning the protection of these rights; to enable the Human Rights Commission to challenge the validity of any provision of any Act of Parliament that in its opinion is in contravention of the guarantees of the fundamental rights and freedoms secured by this Act by instituting legal proceedings in the High Court, the Court of Session or the High Court of Northern Ireland as the case requires; to enable the Human Rights Commission to examine legislation or proposed legislation for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and to report any such inconsistency to Parliament; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would secure for every person within the United Kingdom the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European convention on human rights and its protocols and by the international covenant on civil and political rights, and would establish a United Kingdom human rights commission with powers to initiate legal proceedings for the protection of these rights and for connected purposes.
It is about 40 years since a Labour Government under the prime ministership of Clement Attlee acceded to the European convention. The convention had been drafted largely by an English lawyer—Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe—who was subsequently to become Lord Chancellor in a Conservative Government. In 1966, the Government of Mr. Harold Wilson—as he then was—provided that a right of individual petition to the European Commission and Court of Human Rights should be granted. Since then, the United Kingdom Government have had to defend many cases in Strasbourg before the Commission and that Court.
There have been a number of attempts in Parliament—three times in another place and twice in recent years in this place—to secure the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into the domestic law of our country, to ensure that citizens whose fundamental rights and freedoms have been abridged or attacked by an abuse of public power or by the tyranny of the majority should be permitted to have access to our own domestic courts for a remedy. The guarantee of these rights without the provision of such a remedy is basically meaningless.
We stand alone in Europe—the only country among the members of the Council of Europe which does not offer such a fundamental protection in the form of a basic law which may be used to strike down the action or abuse of power by Ministers, public authorities or even Parliament itself.

Sir Teddy Taylor: (Southend, East) Or the European Community itself.

Mr. Maclennan: In the free democratic Commonwealth, there is no country that does not give the rights that the Bill seeks to promote. The last country which stood with us in not having a Bill of Rights was New Zealand; in 1990, New Zealand enacted a Bill of Rights.
This country and this Parliament have legislated for others to secure that right. We did so for the people of Canada and, most recently, last summer, we did so for the people of Hong Kong. But we have not sought to protect our own citizens by means of a measure which is necessary and which we have recognised as necessary in other civilised parliamentary democracies.
The case for such legislation is now strong. I make no partisan points about the abuses of power that have disfigured the present Government, for there have been abuses by both parties of Government. In the past two years, there have been five serious breaches of the rights of the citizen, and judgment has been found against this country by the court in Strasbourg. A further six cases have been deemed admissible before the court by the European Commission of Human Rights.
These are not light matters; they are not academic matters. They touch on the very fundamentals of our freedoms. They affect the right of association, and the freedom of trade unionists not to be part of a closed shop. They touch on freedom of education—the right not to be dragooned against one's will into sending one's children to a school not of one's choice. They govern freedom of expression, and the entitlement of newspapers and the other media to publicise abuses, as The Sunday Times did with the thalidomide case.
Those are the important rights which protect—or should protect—our citizens in this democracy. But before people obtain a remedy they have to take the long and expensive course to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg—a typical case takes up to six years. That cannot be right. The time has come to ensure that the procedures for securing those rights are simpler.
The Bill asks British judges in the nations of this country to adjudicate to protect citizens from abuse. That judges are capable of so doing has been demonstrated already, by their readiness, when they sit as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to give effect to Bills of Rights enacted by other countries in the Commonwealth. Judges also have increasing experience of giving effect to the broad principles of those rights when enacted by the European Community's legislative process.
It is ironic that the European Court of Justice is recognising the binding effect of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in its procedures, and so, indirectly, our judges are called upon to give effect to those rights in commercial cases. But perhaps the most important cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights are not commercial cases but those that touch upon the family and the individual.
The time has come to move. British public opinion is clear, because, in an opinion poll published by MORI in The Independent in October, 79 per cent. of the British people favoured such a step.
The Bill is unlikely to reach the statute book in the latter part of this Parliament, but it can signal to the public the readiness of Parliament to make good a deficiency that has stood for too long.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Menzies Campbell and Sir David Steel.

PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Mr. Robert Maclennan accordingly presented a Bill to secure to every person within the United Kingdom the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and its protocols, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and certain other rights and freedoms; to ensure that there are effective remedies before the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom for breaches of these fundamental rights and freedoms; to give such fundamental rights and freedoms the same precedence and priority within the legal systems of the United Kingdom as are given to enforceable Community rights under section 2(1) and (4) of the European Communities Act 1972; to establish a United Kingdom Human Rights Commission with power to initiate legal proceedings for the protection of these fundamental rights and freedoms and to give advice and assistance concerning the protection of these rights; to enable the Human Rights Commission to challenge the validity of any provision of any Act of Parliament that in its opinion is in contravention of the guarantees of the fundamental rights and freedoms secured by this act by instituting legal proceedings in the High Court, the Court of Session or the High Court of Northern Ireland as the case requires; to enable the Human Rights Commission to examine legislation or proposed legislation for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and to report any such inconsistency to Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Points of Order

Mr. Speaker: Before I ask the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day, I have a point of order from Sir Richard Body.

Sir Richard Body: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we proceed with the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, your attention will have no doubt been drawn to the fact that, if passed, the Bill will enable a sum of no less than £450 million to be given to the Commission of the European Community. That money is necessary because the Community has illegally spent that sum of money. It therefore follows that we are seeking to condone something that is illegal.
Am I not right in saying that, under Standing Order No. 54, we are debarred from debating that fact for one reason only—that the Bill has been made the first Order of the Day? If it had appeared as the second Order of the Day, we would be able to debate it fully until 10 o'clock.
Although I hope that I would be the last to question the bona fides of those who manage the business of the House—I am not suggesting for one moment that they are using the procedures of the House to prevent a debate on the Bill—is there nothing that could be done now to make the Bill appear as the second Order of the Day? In that way, we could debate it.
Failing that, are there any steps that could be taken by you, Sir, to enable us to voice our objections to the Bill and to enable the public to be more widely informed about their money, the £450 million, which is being handed over for something that has been illegally spent?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members will allow, I shall deal with that point of order, because it might save time.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) is correct: under Standing Order No. 54(1), I am bound to put the Question forthwith on both the Second and Third Readings. The hon. Gentleman may regret what the Government have done in this matter, but it is a matter for them, not for me. However, when I put the Question, the hon. Gentleman, if he so wishes, could vote against it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does it not say in Standing Order No. 54 that, if the Government choose, they can move the Adjournment of the House to enable a discussion to take place? There are several reasons why undoubtedly that should be done.
First, we are dealing with the illegal spending of £450 million, which is effectively equivalent to about £8 per head of the population of the United Kingdom. It is a great deal of money. Secondly, we know that the EEC is illegally withholding a great deal of cash due to the British Treasury. Thirdly, we know from the news today that the EEC plans to double the contribution of £2·5 billion which we have to make this year—that means that the contribution of £4 per family per week to the EEC will increase to £8.
If we cannot discuss such things, surely it means that Parliament is basically becoming useless. We cannot discuss the expenditure of money on an unlawful purpose—it was stated to be unlawful by the Treasury in its paper that we discussed late the other night. If the Government wanted to discuss the matter, could they not simply use Standing Order No. 54 to move the Adjournment? We


could then debate one of the most serious issues—the legality of the EC and how money is taken from British taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker: Whether the Adjournment motion is moved is a question for the Government, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I have no authority to compel them to do that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: But they could do so.

Mr. Speaker: Well, they could.
As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, the Bill reflects exactly what the House agreed to last week, and that is all that it could do. If further payments of the same kind were required, the Government would have to present a new estimate, and a further Bill would then be necessary.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cryer first, please.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a paper presented to the House when the matter was debated, the Treasury made it clear that it admitted that part of that money was illegal and subject to a challenge in the European Court. Under those circumstances, is it proper for Parliament to proceed to vote on that expenditure when part of it is challenged as being of dubious legality? There must be a Standing Order whereby the matter can at least be deferred rather than involve Parliament in a clear illegality, or an attempt to support one.

Mr. Speaker: I recollect selecting an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on that very matter last week. The House divided on it, and the decision of the House was taken.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Trade and Industry questions, you told the House that it must proceed by debate rather than by visual aids after I had shown a banned advertisement by the British Medical Association. May I seek clarification on that? There has been a long and honourable tradition of using visual aids in the House. An hon. Member once brought in a battery hen cage to illustrate the cruelty of battery cages and there have been many other examples. Although I realise that they could be abused because of television cameras in the House, can we not have the same right to use visual aids that was permitted before cameras came to the House?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We shall have a dead fox here on Friday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) casts his mind back to our debates on whether the House should be televised, he will remember that concern was expressed on both sides about the display of visual aids. Although the hon. Gentleman is technically correct to say that it is not out of order to display such items, I believe that it would be deprecated by the whole House if visual aids were generally used. After all, from what the hon. Gentleman wants, it is a small move to Members displaying advertisements for Coca-Cola, for example.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the previous point of order, Mr. Speaker. In last week's debate, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) asked whether the consent of the House was required. He said that the Government have their hands in our pockets again and the Minister in charge of the debate replied:
I do not have my hands in your pockets, but Europe does."—[Official Report, 5 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 260.]
So the Government have admitted that Europe is putting its hands illegally into our pockets. Surely we should have time to debate that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be right about what was said, but I have no authority to change the procedures. I am bound by them.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been occasions when similar situations have occurred and it has been pretty clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to press on you the need to get the business changed, and you have taken that into account.
You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House has not even turned up. We are discussing £450 million of illegal expenditure by the tinpot Common Market. You were not elected by the Common Market; you represent Parliament. What is happening in, or should I say over, your name today is that the Government are allowing £450 million to go through on the nod. You know only too well what will happen: when the Division bells ring after we have shouted no to the expenditure, the shop stewards—the Whips—of the Tory party will be on the Doors to shovel Tory Members through to gain a victory. It is a scandal, and you should suspend the Sitting in order that some discussion can take place.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman well knows that I am bound by the Standing Orders of the House, whatever my own feelings on any matter may be.

Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any more help on that.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on museums?

Mr. Banks: No, it is on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. It is sometimes useful to know what one is voting for or against. Will you, Mr. Speaker, advise me on this matter? Clause 2 states:
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1993 the sum of £1,000.
One cannot get much for £1,000 these days—not even if one happens to be the Queen. If additional sums beyond the £1,000 to go to Her Majesty are requested, will the permission of the House be sought?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that that is a token amount, which was fully debated last week.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak not because I have had my name mentioned but to say that, whenever we as Back Benchers have the opportunity to complain about what goes on in


this place, we have to come to you. You are the protector of the Back Bencher. We have complained time and time again about European affairs being dealt with in the early hours of the morning. We have an opportunity to discuss that problem at this earlier time of day and the Government are denying Back Benchers the right to express their view on it. Come on, Mr. Speaker, get off your backside and do something about it!

Mr. Speaker: I think what we should be doing today is discussing the Standing Orders—I am bound by them and cannot go beyond them.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that the debate on 4 February was limited to an hour and a half, took place late at night and many Members who wished to speak were debarred from doing so? From the remarks that you have already made, it seems that it would be possible for the Government representatives to stay seated and say, "Not moved," so that the matter can come back and be placed second on the Order Paper on another day, and be debated. Is that the position?

Mr. Speaker: That could happen.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND [NO. 2] BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills):—
The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 50.

Division NO. 79]
[3.57 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Alexander, Richard
Hague, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Allason, Rupert
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Amos, Alan
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arbuthnot, James
Hannam, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Ashby, David
Harris, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hayes, Jerry


Atkins, Robert
Hayward, Robert


Batiste, Spencer
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Beith, A. J.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bellingham, Henry
Hind, Kenneth


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Benyon, W.
Howells, Geraint


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Boswell, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Jack, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Jackson, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Jessel, Toby


Brazier, Julian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Butler, Chris
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kirkwood, Archy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knapman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cartwright, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Latham, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Colvin, Michael
Lightbown, David


Conway, Derek
Livsey, Richard


Couchman, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lord, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mackay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dunn, Bob
Maclennan, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
McLoughlin, Patrick



Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Evennett, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mans, Keith


Fearn, Ronald
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maude, Hon Francis


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Franks, Cecil
Miscampbell, Norman


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gale, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardiner, Sir George
Montogomery, Sir Fergus


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Morrison, Sir Charles


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moss, Malcolm


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Gorst, John
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Grist, Ian
Newton, Rt Hon Tony






Norris, Steve
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thornton, Malcolm


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Price, Sir David
Tracey, Richard


Raffan, Keith
Tredinnick, David


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Trippier, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wallace, James


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Rowe, Andrew
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wheeler, Sir John


Salmond, Alex
Whitney, Ray


Sayeed, Jonathan
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wigley, Dafydd


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilshire, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stephen, Nicol
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. David Davis.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Leighton, Ron


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAllion, John


Battle, John
McMaster, Gordon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Madden, Max


Beggs, Roy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bermingham, Gerald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bottomley, Peter
Mudd, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Nellist, Dave


Caborn, Richard
Paisley, Rev Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Conway, Derek
Porter, David (Waveney)


Cousins, Jim
Primarolo, Dawn


Cran, James
Redmond, Martin


Cummings, John
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Skinner, Dennis


Dicks, Terry
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Edwards, Huw
Spearing, Nigel


Farr, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Flynn, Paul
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Worthington, Tony


Gordon, Mildred
Wray, Jimmy


Gorman, Mrs Teresa




Graham, Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


Hinchliffe, David
Sir Richard Body and


Kilfedder, James
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Severn Bridges Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

ACQUISITION AND OCCUPATION OF LAND

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("(1A) Nothing in this section authorises the Secretary of State to acquire compulsorily any of the land in the City of Bristol shown numbered 25,41 or 42 on the deposited plans.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I also address the amendments Nos. 2 to 6. They are all protective provisions for the benefit of statutory undertakers or other third parties of the sort typically found in hybrid and private legislation. They were made by the Select Committee in another place, at the Government's request. The Government had agreed to promote the amendments on the strength of the agreement of the third parties concerned to withdraw their various petitions against the Bill.
I emphasise that none of the amendments does anything other than impose minor conditions and restrictions on the proposed powers of the Secretary of State, which were already provided for in the Bill as it left this House. The Government are happy to accept these amendments for the proper protection of all parties concerned, and are confident that they will not adversely affect implementation of the Bill's proposals. Accordingly, I commend them to the House.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I am delighted to say that the Opposition also agree with the Lords amendments. They affect the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) who is at present chairing the Welsh Grand Committee.
The amendments affect the community action group whose petition, signed by some 518 people, was presented to their Lordships. They also received another petition from Mr. and Mrs. North from that community. Another 15 petitions were withdrawn. They were naturally concerned about the environmental issues affecting the route on the Welsh side of the estuary, such as the visual impact, the noise from the toll plaza and the atmospheric pollution. Their Lordships accepted some of those points and the Department of Transport talked of compensation and an additional screen and I hope that those commitments will be met. As much assurance as possible should be given to local residents and we agree with the amendments, which should go some way to achieving that.
We have some general reservations about the level of tolls on the bridge and the level of accountability, but we agree that there is a considerable need in Wales for a second crossing to assist our beleaguered economy.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Museums and Galleries Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This has been a great year for the national museums and galleries funded by my office, an annus mirabilis which comes after a period of substantial change in which trustees, new directors, curators, warders and staff have accepted the challenge to present their collections to the public in a way that invites scholars and pedagogues to continue their studies within their walls and, most important, excites the public and encourages, tempts and invites the pensioner, parent and child to spend a Saturday afternoon there rather than go to the cinema or football match. I commend the trustees, directors and museum staff for rising to the new age.
Museums and galleries are in a challenging business. They compete with libraries, theme parks, historic homes and even sports grounds as places where education, scholarship and entertainment must mix, where new visions are displayed and new horizons opened up.
That message was true in late Victorian times when galleries were being built by public subscription and private patronage to show pictures to the public for the first time, and when the great range of museums was built in South Kensington, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool and Edinburgh, to name but a few. An afternoon out then was often an afternoon at the museum or art gallery.
That message was somewhat lost in the 1960s and 1970s. It is now again a vital part of the approach of the professional director and his or her increasingly well-trained team. It is an approach that has been enormously encouraged by the many initiatives taken by my well-respected predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), and myself.
To name but a few of those initiatives there is the funding of the Museums Training Institute which was established by my right hon. Friend in order to develop agreed occupational standards and qualifications for the museum sector. We give grant in aid to the Museums and Galleries Commission, which, among other things, administers the museum registration scheme which sets basic common standards for all sizes and types of museums. It also provides money for the area museum councils, which in turn give advice to non-national local museums on improving their collections and services to the public. I take the opportunity provided by this rare debate on museums and galleries to thank all those working in those different institutes, commissions and councils.
The Bill is especially concerned with four leading institutions funded directly by my office—the national gallery, Tate gallery, national portrait gallery, and Wallace collection.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the Minister describes his Bill, I refer to his grandiloquent statement that this has been an annus mirabilis for museums. What has been so special about this year, and what has the Minister done in respect of the obvious difficulty confronted by museums in finding sufficient funds to enter the market to buy new works of

art, and to meet Lord Palumbo's target for the fabric of museums? The steps taken seem rather tiny, and the Minister's claim may be thought inflated.

Mr. Renton: As the hon. Gentleman represents a Scottish constituency, he will know—although this is not one of my responsibilities—that during this year, the national museum of Scotland in Edinburgh will award the design for the extension to its great building. I understand that it is already making a public appeal and seeking funds from the Scottish Office. That is a good example in the hon. Gentleman's home country. As to the rest, the hon. Gentleman anticipates my speech. I will talk about some specific successes in national museums and galleries in the part of my speech that I am about to reach.
The first of the four of my client institutions is the national gallery. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House know that Her Majesty the Queen graciously opened its new Sainsbury wing in 1991. Anyone who was present on that occasion, or who has visited the wing since, will agree that it establishes a superb background against which the gallery's quattrocento and cinquecento paintings can be hung.
The wing was made possible entirely by the generous gifts of the three brothers John, Simon, and Tim Sainsbury—the latter otherwise known to us as the right hon. Member for Hove. Rightly and properly, they have been described as modern Medicis for their generosity in making that wing available. I have no doubt that the Medicis would warmly approve the background against which the beautiful pietà Serena and other early renaissance pictures are now hung.
There have also been several gallery refurbishments, helped by individual sponsorship—notably that of Mr. Wohl; Agnew; the former American ambassador, Mr. Annenberg; and Hazlitt, Gooden and Fox—whose refurbished galleries I was pleased to visit just the other day.
I have been able to allocate an extra £500,000 for roof and services work, in addition to the substantial other sums made available by my office to the national gallery. You, Mr. Speaker, would not want me to leave the subject of that gallery without referring to the outstanding exhibition of more than 70 paintings from Heinz Berggruen's internationally famous private collection. I congratulate the gallery's retired chairman, Lord Rothschild, and its director, Neil MacGregor, on their skill in persuading Heinz Berggruen to lend those great pictures for at least five years.

Mr. Tony Banks: While we are all deeply grateful to these fat cats for all the money that they have put into the arts, can the Minister tell us whether they enjoy any tax breaks for being so munificent with the money that they have garnered in the check-outs of the supermarkets that they run?

Mr. David Enwright: On Sundays.

Mr. Banks: Yes, on Sundays.

Mr. Renton: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who follows these matters closely and who probably does some of his shopping at these supermarkets, even on Sunday—

Mr. Banks: No.

Mr. Renton: —will know that these generous donations were made from the extensive number of charitable trusts formed by members of the Sainsbury family in recent years, which have helped many an institution, not just the national gallery.
Next on my list is the Tate gallery. Apart from many improvements at Millbank itself, in the past two years the Tate has spread its wings into more distant parts of the country. In 1988 the Tate gallery Liverpool was opened, thus helping the process of regeneration around the Albert dock in Liverpool. This follows the Government's policy of increasing public access to the nation's collections. I congratulate the trustees of the Tate on the vigorous programme of displays at Liverpool which has made the Tate's 20th century art available to a new regional audience.
This year the Tate gallery in St. Ives is being built. I have given the Tate an extra £100,000 to help begin operations there. Extra Government money—

Mr. Tony Banks: On whose behalf?

Mr. Renton: On behalf of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I had him particularly in mind, knowing his interest in the St. Ives school of painting. Extra Government money has been allocated for refurbishment work at Millbank.

Mr. Mark Fisher: While the Minister takes credit for his Government's involvement in the excellent Tate in Liverpool, will he explain to the House and to those who admire this gallery why, when the Tate applied to him last November for an additional £600,000 to continue its work at the Tate in the north, he provided only £300,000?

Mr. Renton: Even the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), with his known ability to scatter taxpayers' money here, there and everywhere regardless of consequences in cost, will have been told by his sources that I gave the Tate half the requested sum,£ 300,000, and urged it to use its own best housekeeping endeavours to ensure that sufficient of the remainder could be found in order to make certain that the Tate in Liverpool remains fully open. I understand that this is the course of action that the director and trustees are likely to follow. So prudence allied with generosity is likely to have an appropriate reward.
At Millbank we have seen excellent special exhibitions in the past few months: Constable sponsored by Barclays bank; an exhibition of Sir Anthony Caro's sculptures, sponsored by KPMG; and next week the third version of "New Displays", sponsored by British Petroleum, which enables the Tate to rotate works from its collection for display. I am delighted that the extensive gallery, which has been refurbished thanks to the generosity of Nomura, is now complete and is likely to open shortly.
As to the national portrait gallery, with Government support and encouragement it has embarked on a gallery development plan that will increase exhibition space by 37 per cent. We provided additional buildings on Orange street behind the gallery, together with £3·5 million towards the plan. The gallery has a successful appeal under way and has held some notable exhibitions such as "The Portrait in British Art", sponsored by Enterprise Oil.
I mention these sponsors to show the House the wide variety of British businesses which are now prepared to

work hand in hand with the Government, with the funds made available by the Office of Arts and Libraries, because they see that sponsorship of the arts falls increasingly within the practice and objects of their companies and helps to promote their corporate image, as well as being extremely helpful to the art institute involved. That is why we have seen over the past 15 years business sponsorship of the arts grow from barely £500,000 in the mid-1970s to well over £40 million now.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I have been a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts almost since the outset. We produced a major report on public and private funding of the arts, and it was obvious to every member of the Committee and everyone who read the report just how important public money was. Without public money, the arts could hardly exist.
While preparing our report on charges for entrance to galleries and museums, we visited the Louvre. That was the only subject, in the history of the Select Committee, on which the Opposition chose to produce a minority report. Lord Rothschild, of the national gallery, and Neil MacGregor were both opposed to the Government's view: neither wanted charges. The Victoria and Albert museum told us that the money that it received from the Government was not even sufficient to deal with the fabric of the museum, and that it was deeply worried.
Will the Minister please stop being so lyrical? Much as we want sponsorship, it is quite insufficient to deal with the problems, as is the money from the Government.

Mr. Renton: Of course public funding plays a part. That is why I was delighted to inform the House, only a few weeks ago, that, for the third year running my Department had been able to give the Arts Council a record increase. That shows the Government's commitment to supporting the arts. In the year ahead, the Arts Council will receive a 14 per cent. increase—an extra £27 million.
I shall deal with the question of charging later in my speech, and if the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) wants to ask any further questions after that he is welcome to do so. I was interested to learn that the Select Committee had visited the Louvre. The Louvre charges for entrance and, having used the money to fund an expensive capital expansion programme, it is now in the process of tripling the number of admissions. It is not the charge that puts people off visiting a gallery or museum; they are put off if a collection is not interestingly displayed. The Louvre's is a perfect example of a charging policy that works.

Mr. Flannery: rose—

Mr. Renton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman returns to this point when I have made my own specific comments. He has said that he has to go to a meeting.

Mr. Flannery: We visited the Louvre precisely because it charged for entrance. It has charged ever since the introduction of the Napoleonic code, and it is therefore impossible to compare France with other countries in which charges have never been imposed.
Sir Robert Peel said that the purpose of the national gallery was to allow people who could not afford to put pictures on their walls to look at them free of charge—and he was a noble Tory, to say the least. When, for instance,


the national museum of Wales introduced charges, admissions fell by 80 per cent. When charges are introduced, the people who have no art in their houses are the ones who stop visiting galleries. That is what the Government have done.

Mr. Renton: I now regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman again. He has simply repeated his earlier points. The Prado in Madrid charges; so does the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. Very few national museums do not.

Mr. Flannery: rose—

Mr. Renton: I have given the hon. Gentleman two bites at the cherry. He should now listen to the answer. By charging, and by turning from direct vote to grant in aid, we have enabled museums and galleries to decide to charge if they wish. It is their decision, not ours. We do not insist that, for instance, the Victoria and Albert museum charge for entrance. That is up to the trustees, who may decide that charging would provide additional revenue with which they could mount special collections and special exhibitions from all over the world. That decision was taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham and, as I shall demonstrate in a few moments, it has been very well justified by the results.
It is with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman that I say that he should take his head out of the sand and look around the world to see what is happening in all the leading museums and galleries.
The Wallace collection is, of course, unique. As hon. Members will know, it is a remarkable collection of 18th-century paintings and furniture, put together at a time when, perhaps, British collecting was at its height, and given to the nation through the generosity of the Hertford family. The largest room there must be one of the finest galleries in the world. I am delighted that the collection is in such good shape. Recent repairs to the roof were carried out with Government support.
Having spoken of the four particular museums and galleries that are covered by the Bill, I think with very great pleasure of the many visits that I have made over the past year to other museums and galleries—national, local and independent—throughout the country. In almost all cases I was much impressed by the vigour and the enterprising spirit with which the collections are being shown off. In this manner the museums and galleries are seeking to attract a larger proportion of people who are looking for things to do outside their homes.
The Liberal spokesman—the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—asked about the refurbishment of national museum and gallery buildings. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that refurbishment is proceeding very well. Nearly £200 million of Government money will be spent on it over the next three years. It is not simply a matter of throwing money at the work to be done; we assess very carefully the forward building programmes. I should like to make special mention of the excellent progress that is being made with the refurbishment of Sir John Soane's museum, which I sponsor. This funding is provided jointly with MEPC plc. There is also the full refurbishment of the south-west wing of the national maritime museum, which is entirely Government funded.
Help is being given very widely through the museums and galleries improvement fund, which we fund jointly

with very generous trusts from the Wolfson family. The amount has recently been increased to £20 million, in all, over the next five years, and it is now supporting more than 100 projects in museums up and down the country—in local museums such as the Herbert art gallery in Coventry, the Laing art gallery in Newcastle upon Tyne, the Tolson museum in Huddersfield, the Manchester city art gallery, the Colchester castle museum, and the museum of Dartmoor life in Okehampton.
In some measure the Bill consolidates the successes that I have mentioned. In a sense it is an accolade to the trustees, the directors and the staffs of the four galleries that are particularly concerned. The Bill is intended primarily to provide wide and explicit powers for the trustees of the national gallery, the Tate, the national portrait gallery and the Wallace collection in order that they may be able to discharge their heavy responsibilities in the modern world. Most decisions are now, rightly, being taken by the trustees and their staffs, especially in relation to building programmes since these were untied from the Property Services Agency in 1988.
Many large projects and contracts are involved, and it is therefore important that corporate status be provided as it is simply not right that trustees should be individually liable in respect of contracts. A consequence of incorporation is that it is necessary to spell out the new boards' powers and responsibilities explicitly, rather than, as hitherto, expect the boards to rely, for the most part, on the common law of trusteeship. I wish to ensure that, in doing this, we provide a framework in which the new boards of trustees will have the freedom and flexibility to run the galleries in the most beneficial way possible.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will see that clause 2 maintains certain powers with regard to charging. In particular, it is in line with the Government's policy that trustees themselves should be able to decide whether to make a charge for admission. It sustains their present common law right to make such a charge. As we have just seen, the charging policy of museums and galleries excites much stronger feelings in the House, rather curiously, than it does among the institutions. Evidently the Opposition still take the high-minded attitude that this wicked policy has been imposed on museums and galleries by the Government. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said that Labour would abolish charges on core collections.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: No, not at the moment. I want to complete this section of my speech.
I say again that the Government do not impose the charges. It is up to each individual institution to decide whether to impose charges, whether for entry to specific exhibitions or generally, and whether to provide concessions for students, pensioners, the disabled and the unemployed. Even those museums and galleries that make a charge have generous arrangements for different categories of people. They provide free admission for pre-booked school parties and concessionary rates for other groups of visitors.
The institutions that charge have gained greatly from the proceeds raised. They do not go into the Government's coffers; they are used, together with the proceeds from the shop, cafe and sponsorship, for activities that the museums and galleries themselves choose. This additional revenue,


which amounted last year to £46 million in total, of which £7·3 million related to admission charges, has given each museum and gallery that has decided to charge greater freedom and independence to run its own affairs and to expand in the way that it particularly wants.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Fisher: rose—

Mr. Renton: I have to say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and also to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, both of whom I see are trying to intervene, that for the Labour party to say publicly in its policy documents that it intends to take away that freedom is like turning the clock back to the days before perestroika was discovered. It is the attitude of backward cavemen who want to take the world back into the dark days because of their own myopia.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister referred to the benefits that he claims the museums gain, though he knows perfectly well that every single museum that imposes charges would prefer not to do so because it dislikes the reduced attendances that have resulted from the imposition of entrance charges. The Minister says that the museums and galleries have benefited. Why does not he ask the public, who elected both the right hon. Gentleman and his Government as well as all Opposition Members, how they have benefited from the very substantial fall in attendance? The national museum of Wales, we were told, saw a drop of 80 per cent. in attendance when it imposed charges. How does the Minister believe that the public in Wales benefited from charging for entrance to that museum?

Mr. Renton: After years as shadow Minister for the Arts, the hon. Gentleman shows an ignorance about the subject which appals me. No wonder there is talk that Melvyn Bragg is to become Lord Bragg and Minister for the Arts, if ever there were to be a Labour Government. I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman. Where has he been? Does he not know that, as a result of charging to enter the "Visions of Japan" exhibition, admissions to the V and A went up substantially? As the museum director said, putting on a special exhibition for which the museum imposed a charge attracted many more people into the V and A. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, I fear that he is never going to get any further than his present job as shadow Minister for the Arts.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Renton: I shall give way once more to the hon. Gentleman. Then I must get on with the rest of my speech.

Mr. Banks: I put it to the Minister that he is being very combative and getting us all worked up, but the fact is that he has not answered the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). An accusation of high-mindedness is one which I am quite prepared to bear because it was high-mindedness, in many ways, that set up the museums. They were established by people who were considerably more high-minded than the present Government. There is no argument on the Opposition side about charges being imposed for special exhibitions. That is perfectly acceptable. The Minister should not use that as a way of

trying to rebut the argument. However, when it comes to charging an entrance fee for general admission, no single museum, if given the choice, would impose a charge. Every museum knows, though, that it needs that money because the Government are not giving it the necessary funding.

Mr. Renton: I despair of Opposition Members who think that they know something about the subject, but in fact know nothing. The Tate and the national gallery have put on specific exhibitions for which they have charged—the Queen's pictures in the national gallery and the Constable collection in the Tate. They said that that brought additional people into the galleries. If the Labour party is stuck with the policy of the 1970s, I realise how much the arts will suffer if it is ever in a position to execute its policies. I am deeply destressed, as is most of the House, at the ignorance shown by Opposition Members.
In respect of disposals from collections, I have sought to honour the commitment given to the House in 1989 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham that any relevant powers would, as far as possible, be tailor-made to meet the specific requirements of each institution for the optimum management of its collection. [Interruption.] I imagine that that wish might be shared even by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is speaking from a sedentary position. There is now a much greater willingness to explore other sources of funding to the benefit of the taxpayer. There is a greater emphasis on trading revenue, which was stimulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham's revision of the financing arrangements for national museums and galleries in 1986 in which Government funding was changed from direct vote to grant in aid so that national museums and galleries would be able to retain their self-generated receipts without offsetting reductions in Government grant. Opposition Members should bear that in mind.
The overall purpose was to provide an opportunity for a larger growth in the total funding available to them than would otherwise be possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham undertook to put grant in aid on a regular legislative basis and that is what the Bill does. Hitherto, it has rested on the annual Appropriation Act. Before my right hon. Friend's far-sighted revision of the arrangements, the national museums and galleries trading receipts had to be surrendered and revoted to them. That was hardly an incentive mechanism and it has been set right in perpetuity by the Bill.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I used to plague him with Adjournment debates on the natural history museum. I know that the powers of disposal for that museum are separate from what we are discussing today. However, since the subject has arisen again in what we read and from what we hear from those involved about the dire position of the South Kensington museum, is there anything that the Minister can say about those who work there and what the future holds for them?

Mr. Renton: I know of the hon. Gentleman's worries about the natural history museum. He has often spoken of them in the House to my predecessor and myself. The reorganisation of that museum is now well in place and it is benefiting from that. Curation has been strengthened and there is a more effective and efficient advisory service. The impressive ecology gallery has been opened and a new


dinosaur gallery is planned—[Interruption.] It is typical that the Opposition do not want to hear the facts. Attendance in 1991 was 1·5 million, which is a 2·8 per cent. increase over 1990. I have not been advised of any likely changes in the museum's disposal plans. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific detail about that, perhaps he will write to me. The matter is not covered by the Bill and I should make progress.
The Bill is broadly similar in structure and provisions to the National Heritage Act 1983 which put the V and A and science museum on a regular footing and the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985. Both those Acts, which had all-party support at the time, have stood the test of time and the Government have therefore chosen to follow a similar path on this occasion.
It has been recognised for some time that the present statutory basis of the four institutions is deficient. Their powers are often ill-defined and overly rigid in scope—it is impossible to open the Tate restaurant when the gallery is closed and there is no power to have a restaurant at the national portrait gallery. That leads to frustrating uncertainties about what may and may not be done by the trustees.
The national portrait gallery rests almost entirely on a Treasury minute of 1856. Although the Treasury minute is an excellent document, it may be out of date. The Tate gallery rests, for the most part, on the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 which set up the Tate as a separate body and allowed for rationalisation of the collections, but provided little else. The Wallace derives a good part of its legal standing from a Treasury minute of 1897. Those and other instruments served their purpose in the beginnings of the galleries, but, in terms of present day requirements, they no longer provide a way forward.
The Bill falls into four main parts. The first part establishes new incorporated boards of trustees for the national gallery, Tate gallery, national portrait gallery and Wallace collection, deals with their general functions, constitutions and powers, including those to form companies, in three cases—not the Wallace—to acquire and dispose of pictures and other objects and to lend and borrow such objects.
The House will wish to know that, apart from being able to transfer pictures to other collections, I have taken the view that the national gallery should not be able to dispose of any work of art—other than by way of transfer to another specified collection—because the pictures in its collection are of established merit and significance. In addition, all the pictures are presently hung and it is logical to keep them together.

Mr. Alistair Darling: The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the Bill deals primarily with the galleries for which his Department is responsible. It also deals with the national gallery of Scotland? Can he explain why the Bill provides for tight policies for disposal of works of art in respect of English galleries, but does not make the corresponding provisions for the national gallery of Scotland? If I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to demonstrate that that will place the national gallery of Scotland at a substantial disadvantage. No Scottish Office Minister has turned up today, but I wonder whether the Minister can deal with that matter, because it is of great concern to the trustees north of the border.

Mr. Renton: I am aware that the matter has been raised by the trustees, but no specific request has come to me.

Mr. Darling: rose—

Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman doubting my word?

Mr. Darling: The Minister has been using the pronoun a great deal today. I can assure him that the Scottish Office was made aware of the trustees' concern some months ago. It would appear that the Scottish Office has been grossly negligent if it has not told his Department, which I assume is primarily responsible for the drafting of the Bill, about that concern. Will the Minister check, before the end of the debate, whether his Department has any knowledge of the Scottish Office being contacted? If the Scottish Office did not even get in touch with his Department, the resentment north of the border will be substantial.

Mr. Renton: I recognise once again the hectoring and bullying manner that the hon. Gentleman adopted when we met for debates on immigration. I regret that it continues. I am aware that an approach was made to the Scottish Office. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will allow me to finish. It did not come to my office as such, because the first view taken by the Scottish Office was that if such powers were given to the national gallery of Scotland they would render the Bill hybrid. That is the position now.

Mr. Fisher: The record will show that before giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) the Minister said that the Bill gave powers to all three museums to dispose of works, apart from the Wallace collection. If he refers to the Bill, he will see that it does not give powers to the national gallery. I am surprised that he is not a master of the Bill that he is presenting. I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman either does not listen or does not read. I have taken the view that the national gallery should not be able to dispose of any work of art other than by way of transfer to another specified collection. That is what I said. If the hon. Gentleman listened more carefully and was not so keen to score party-political points, he might absorb the contents of the Bill more easily.
In keeping with the understanding entered into at the time of the Wallace collection passing to the nation, I propose that it should not be able to acquire or dispose of works of art and that it should remain a closed collection in the terms of the original bequest, which was to be
kept together unmixt with other objects".
The Tate and the national portrait galleries are rather different animals and I propose that they should be given limited powers of disposal. The reasoning for that is reflected in their collections.
The great majority of the Tate's collection—some 75 per cent.—cannot be hung at any one time. Its collections are also subject to much greater change as its function is to acquire the work largely of contemporary artists. If in the context of changing needs it needs to dispose occasionally of examples of works which overlap or are duplicated, it should have the right to do so. It can then use the resources released to add to the collection in any


manner that it wishes. I stress that the decision to dispose would be a matter for the trustees and the Government would play no part.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Renton: I intend to finish my speech. I have been on my feet for a long time and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to make his point.
Equally, the proceeds of the disposal would be freely used by it but only to acquire further works of art for its collections. I must also stress that this power in no way signals a Government wish to see a widespread disposal of the Tate's collections. It is a reserve power to be used occasionally and after full consideration by the trustees.
The Bill provides powers to the national portrait gallery to transfer objects and to dispose of duplicates but in its case I have added, at the trustees' request, a power to enable them—if they so wish—to dispose of portraits when the board is satisfied that the identification of the person portrayed has been discredited—this is to assist them in the proper management of their collection. Again, any money from disposals could be used by the board only to acquire further objects for the collection.
The second part of the Bill empowers these and other boards of trustees of specified museums, galleries and libraries—all of considerable standing—to transfer objects from their collections to other similarly specified institutions. For the most part, this is sustaining and expanding the transfer provisions of the National and Tate Gallery Act 1954 which the Bill would repeal. It also provides for gifts of works of art to the nation or for the public benefit to be vested in specified institutions and enables Crown land and buildings occupied by specified national museums, galleries and libraries to be transferred to their governing bodies notwithstanding any prohibition or restriction to the contrary. The latter provision is intended, within constraints, to facilitate the trustees to be given ownership of their particular estates, and the policy was announced in another place in 1989.
These transfers will place a further responsibility on the trustees—that of complying with planning law in respect of alterations to their listed buildings—because at the moment there is Crown exemption. I look to them to make the fullest use of these wonderful buildings as modern museums while preserving the buildings' historic character.
The third part provides for the payment of grant in aid to certain national museums. I have already mentioned this point and it is a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham because he suggested the idea during his long term as Minister for the Arts. It provides for the payment of grant in aid to certain national museums, galleries and libraries and the Museums and Galleries Commission by the appropriate Minister out of money provided by Parliament, for the keeping of proper records and accounts and the examination and certification of those accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General and for him to report on those accounts to Parliament.
Clause 10, which deals with indemnities at greater length, provides for designated institutions to give

indemnities when borrowing objects for public exhibition or study and to provide for the financing of those indemnities.
Under current arrangements, indemnities for works of art loaned to our national museums and galleries are issued by the Office of Arts and Libraries and some other Government Departments, at the request and on the advice of their respective institutions. Senior national museum directors made representations to me last week that they wished the present arrangements to continue. In their representations, they have acknowledged the speed with which indemnities are issued by my office and the prompt advice given on tricky problems, especially indemnity applications from foreign lenders.
Clause 10 was drawn up following an undertaking by my right hon. Friend in response to previous representations to empower national museums and galleries to issue their own indemnities, but in the light of representations made to me at the end of last week, I intend to table an amendment at the Committee stage withdrawing clause 10 and substituting a new clause which will make technical improvements to the National Heritage Act 1980 in the matter of reporting liabilities and the need only to approve borrowers, not lenders.
The fourth part deals with minor and supplemental matters, but I would not wish the House to overlook the provision, at the request of the trustees, to change the name of the British museum (natural history) to the natural history museum by which it has come generally to be known, an important marker in its successful development as a separate body with an international reputation.
The board of trustees of the armouries was set up by the National Heritage Act 1983, but, unlike some bodies, was not then given the power to form companies. The Bill would give the board those powers, which are already enjoyed by similar bodies, and also allow it to make grants for appropriate purposes.
Other provisions of the Bill deal with particular Welsh institutions and certain provisions extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
In conclusion—

Mr. Toby Jessel: My hon. Friend referred five minutes ago to the payment of grants. Will he take note of the fact that many of us on the Back Benches very much hope that the Government will introduce measures to make possible the creation of a national lottery which will throw up substantial funds for the refurbishment, repair and maintenance and construction of museum buildings in the national interest? Will he not only take note of that but convey it to the Government as a whole, in the hope that they will have a Bill ready on the stocks for early implementation in the very first Session of the new Parliament for our Governmnent to introduce?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Renton: To judge from that response, I think that my hon. Friend has a great deal of support in the House. If we were to add those provisions to the Bill, I fear that we might not fall within the long title of the Bill. However, I very much support and understand my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for a national lottery.
The time has come to build further on the foundations of the achievements of the trustees and professional staffs, the public's growing interest and the Government's


profound commitment to the future of these great institutions. It is important to ensure that the trustees of the four galleries have the powers to underpin that future. The Bill does that and more, and I hope that it will be warmly received.
I found on my desk a little sticker which states "Vote for the Arts", issued by the National Campaign for the Arts. I have no doubt that by voting for the Bill and for the Conservatives' record of achievement the arts will prosper far more than they would under the dogmatic, doctrinaire, interfering and bureaucratic solutions proposed by Labour. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I think that the Minister has set a record in the House by making what was probably one of the longest Second Reading speeches for one of the shortest Bills. He entertained the House for 47 minutes. He gave way generously to many hon. Members—and I am sure that they appreciated it— but I suspect that we were hearing the Ministers swan song. I suspect that that was the last time that he will make a speech as Minister for the Arts, and I do not think that the House would begrudge him a longer time to say his farewells. He has not held the post very long but he has worked hard and the arts world has appreciated that.

Mr. Tony Banks: Patronise him, patronise him.

Mr. Fisher: I thank my hon. Friend. However, it was a long swan song for a short Bill. I do not think that many hon. Members would criticise the length of the speech but they and members of the museum and arts worlds outside would criticise the Bill's contents.
We have heard 47 minutes of the most extraordinary self-congratulation and complacency that can have ever been heard. I do not believe that the museum world will recognise the picture of the Government's stewardship that the Minister sought to paint. He knows very well from the deputations of trustees and directors of national galleries and of galleries and museums around the country that they have been hugely critical of the Government's neglect. I do not understand how the Government can paint the picture that they have.
The real context of the Bill is more likely to be portrayed by the fact that last year the Tate gallery—one of the four galleries covered by the Bill—was able to purchase one picture on behalf of the nation. That is all that it could afford under this Government.
The Minister referred to the detail in the Bill, and that specifically charges the Tate gallery to
care for, preserve and add to
its collection. Yet the Government's stewardship of the Tate has allowed it to add one picture last year. That is the background of neglect against which we must realise that the Bill is being introduced.
The Opposition undoubtedly welcome most of the Bill. Its provisions have been around for about three years, since the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) introduced measures and ideas along those lines. Almost all those provisions command bipartisan support. We welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill, and we shall not oppose it.
However, as the Minister said, the Bill raises important questions about the structure and accountability of the four galleries concerned, about their finances and obligations, about their ability to trade and to acquire and

dispose of works of art, and about their liabilities and indemnities in the event of any damage. The way in which the Government have handled those matters tells us much about their attitude to museums.
The Government probably have the worst record on looking after museums of any Government since the war. It could be said that they have abandoned whole areas of their responsibility to the national museums. The fact that the Minister started his speech by talking about an annus mirabilis will have been met with incredulity outside the House. Members of the public reading his speech will claw through its 47 minutes looking for anything that has happened in the past year for which the Government can claim credit.
The Minister rightly said that good things have happened—such as the extremely good directorship of all four collections, most notably of the national gallery under Mr. Neil MacGregor, and of the Tate gallery under Mr. Nicholas Serota. But all that good work has happened in spite of the Government—mainly because of the way in which the museums have worked intelligently with sponsors to help them to realise their ideals.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most exciting regional museum to be opened last year—it was opened last May by Her Majesty the Queen—was the Tullie House museum in Carlisle? That excellent museum was conceived by the Labour-controlled council despite Conservative opposition.

Mr. Fisher: Yes. The Tullie House museum undoubtedly made last year a special year for the north of England. It is exciting when a brand-new public sector museum opens. Having visited Tullie House, I can confirm that, as my hon. Friend says, it is remarkable, and I commend it to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It contains an extraordinary collection, beautifully presented, and any hon. Members who find themselves in Carlisle would do well to spend a few hours there. They would enjoy themselves very much.
In spite of the Government's hostility to local authorities, and their attitude to local authority finance, local authorities have managed to expand the service in that way—yet the Government have not. It is true that things have happened above the ground at the Tate, but the Government's responsibilities for its fabric—the wiring, the structure, the roofs and so on—have been appallingly neglected.
The Government are in an extraordinarily poor position to congratulate themselves on an annus mirabilis. The Minister made a half-hearted attempt to justify that claim, but he could not identify anything that he or the Government had positively done.
I should like to examine one or two points, and invite the Minister to comment upon them before the Bill receives a Second Reading. The Minister skated over the details of the boards. Their size satisfies everybody—they are small—and the boards of trustees of all the museums have shown that they have the right ability and expertise, and are working well. However, the Minister knows that all the galleries—certainly the Tate and the national gallery—have told him strongly that the Government have the term of the trusteeships wrong.
The Bill says that the term of a trusteeship should be five years, yet, as the Minister knows, the director of the Tate gallery, and the trustees of the Tate and of the


national galleries have made strong representations that, for good sound reasons, that term should be seven years. The trustees and the directors say that it takes two to three years to get the feel of the responsibilities—those responsibilities are considerably greater these days—and to work one's way in and become able to contribute fully. To identify a new chairperson for the board, or to derive full value from bringing on those trustees, five years is too short.
The Minister may say that the trusteeship can be renewed for a further five years, but I see no reason why he has resisted the expert opinion of the trustees and directors of the museums. The term appears to have been fixed on the Minister's personal whim. I am not sure whether he received any evidence from anybody else—from the Museums and Galleries Commission, or from any board of trustees or any director—to support his idea for a period of five years.
If the Minister can identify any objective professional evidence that five years is the period needed, that would be very interesting, but I believe that all the expert evidence that he received supported a period of seven years. It is extraordinary that the Minister should take it into his head that he knows better than people in the museums world, and impose upon them a period that nobody asked for—indeed, everybody asked for the opposite. Perhaps he will answer those questions when he replies.
Clause 4 is undoubtedly the key to the Bill. It deals with disposals, and the implications of disposals. For the first time the Bill gives galleries powers of disposal, subject to certain conditions—or rather it gives such powers to the Tate and the national portrait gallery, but not to the Wallace collection or the national gallery.
The Opposition have no quarrel with the principle of disposal, leaving aside the financial implications. Undoubtedly, if Parliament empowers trustees and directors to use their artistic judgment and professional experience to acquire works of art on behalf of their galleries, it is logical to trust them to use that same judgment to dispose of works of art. In a neutral world, unaffected by other considerations, that would be correct. We should trust the judgment of people such as Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Serota.
However, there are genuine fears. The Minister knows that opinion is well split in the museums world. The national gallery told the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Shoreham—no doubt the arguments were repeated to the Minister personally by many of the trustees and directors of the museums—that they did not want powers of disposal—not because they did not trust their own intellectual judgment, but, following the line set down in the Museums and Galleries Commission's 1988 report on the national gallery, because those powers should not be forced on the galleries. The trustees asked that Parliament should not confer such powers on them.
That was the view of the MGC in 1988, and I understand that it remains the view of many of the directors, not because of the matter of intellectual judgment or scholarship, but because of fears that the Government will seek to put pressure on their finances.
The Minister has gone some way towards allaying those fears by adding the proviso that any money from disposals should be used for the acquisition of further works.

However, that leaves the galleries open to pressure, when they come to the Minister and make points such as that which I made at the beginning of my speech—saying, for instance, that last year the Tate gallery could buy only one work of art. In future the Minister will be able to refer to the Bill and say, "Parliament has given you the power to dispose of works of art, if you wish to acquire more—and, in using those receipts from disposals, you are specifically confined to making further acquisitions.
If those at the Tate do not believe that the acquisition of one picture a year is sufficient to keep its contemporary art collection up to date, the Government could tell them to use the powers in the Bill to dispose of works of art. Directors of galleries are worried about that.
The Minister may say that that argument is unreasonable. He may turn the argument on those galleries by saying that, in effect, they are admitting that they do not have any works of art that are available or appropriate for disposal. The Minister might then argue, with some validity, that huge revenue is not to be gained from such disposals. That would be a good debating ploy. However, the fact is that if the directors of galleries wish to raise money the Minister can refer them to the Bill and powers contained in clause 4. That is worrying in view of the way in which the Government have handled the purchasing grant—the acquisition grant—of the galleries in the past few years.
As part of the Minister's annus mirabilis—no doubt he would say that there have been 12 anni mirabilis; I think that that is right—

Mr. Gerald Bowden: indicated assent.

Mr. Fisher: I am glad that I got that right.
In the past seven years, the acquisition grants of the galleries have been frozen. The national portrait gallery now gets £310,000. In cash terms that is exactly the same as the amount it received seven years ago. The Tate gallery gets £1·8 million, which is exactly the same as it got in 1984–85. The national gallery gets £2·75 million, the same as it received seven years ago and rather less than it received 10 years ago. During that time the allocation to that gallery has been reduced, and subsequently frozen. The Wallace is the exception because it has not been asked to increase its collection. The other three galleries, however, have experienced a Government who have said, effectively, "We don't want you to buy works of art. We believe that your acquisition money should be frozen at the 1984 level." However, the Bill requires those galleries to buy works of art, but it will take a long time to make such acquisitions.

Sir Timothy Raison: Surely the test of all this is not necessarily how big the Government grant for acquisitions is but what the galleries are able to acquire. I would support strongly a bigger Government grant for acquisitions because there are many good uses to which it could be put. Although the national gallery has had a limited grant, it has, by various means available to it, acquired not only a marvellous new building, but many great works of art.

Mr. Fisher: I was just about to make that point and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised it.
Given the way in which the grant works, the national gallery is only able to buy works on instalments. The right hon. Gentleman follows such matters closely and he will be


aware that the typical price of the major works that the national gallery must buy is several millions. At the moment that gallery is engaged—I use the word advisedly —in purchasing an important Cuyp landscape. It is worth £8 million and the gallery has had to purchase it through three annual instalments negotiated with the previous owners. That is the only way it can acquire that one work. In addition to the third instalment on the Cuyp, the national gallery has made the first instalment on a Cranage painting. That is the way in which the gallery has to operate.
If the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) inquires of the trustees arid directors of either the national or the Tate he will be told in no uncertain terms that it is extremely unsatisfactory that they cannot acquire the sort of painting that they need to keep their collections fresh and up to date. They will also raise a much more important issue with him.
It is not only a matter of those galleries buying great emblematic works of art. The thing that makes British museums and galleries so exciting and unique is that, unlike American ones, they have a duty to collect not just the high spots of any period, but the average, sometimes even the bad. works of art which represent the context from which the great works of art arose. When one visits a gallery it is important to look at the great works in the context of their period. If the right hon. Gentleman talks to those directors, they will back what I say.

Sir Timothy Raison: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is true.
The Government's attitude has made it difficult for galleries to acquire the keynote works that they need. It has been almost impossible for them to acquire the artistic infrastructure that should surround those works so that they can be seen in the right scholarship context.

Sir Timothy Raison: I accept that many museums are concerned with acquiring such context works, but the national gallery is in the business, quite rightly, of acquiring the very finest works. The hon. Gentleman has said that it is in the process of acquiring two incredibly beautiful works and the point is that it is acquiring them even though they cost much more than the nominal amount of Government grant available. With the aid of the national art collections fund and other means, the galleries can raise other resources to acquire the finest works. We would like them to acquire more, of course, but they do not have a bad record.

Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree about the difficulties that those galleries face. I would be surprised if he did not agree with me that it is wrong that the Tate can buy only one picture a year. That is apart from the fact that it cannot fill any holes in its Picasso, Matisse or Henry Moore collections.
The Tate cannot even afford works by fine living British artists like Howard Hodgkin. Such works are out of the range of the Tate's powers of acquisition. If the Tate is unable to buy the works of young British artists, as it should, its collections will be enormously deficient. That is especially significant as it is the key contemporary house of 20th century works of art in Britain.

Mr. Renton: I noted what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said and it is

interesting that, in reply, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has tried to sit on both sides of the fence on the difficult question of acquisitions and disposals. He must declare his hand.
The Tate is primarily concerned with collecting contemporary art but it is never able to show more than from 23 to 25 per cent. of its collection at any time. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not give it the limited powers of disposal available in clause 4(4)(b)? The hon. Gentleman must declare his hand and say whether he is in favour of those disposal powers.

Mr. Fisher: We will discuss that clause in detail in Committee. I have already said that the Opposition support the Bill. We have a bipartisan approach to it. However, we have grave reservations about clause 4 if it is left in the hands of a Government who have a long track record of being mean with acquisition money.
The intellectual case for disposal is fine and if a Government take an intelligent view about the need to buy new pictures it poses no danger. However, this Government have frozen, deliberately, purchase grants even in the past three years when the Minister has had funds at his disposal. He has increased funds to the Arts Council, so why has he not unfrozen the acquisition grants?
I have said several times that we will not oppose the Bill. If it does not pass through the House before the general election, the next Labour Government will pick it up and enact it. However, the difference is that the powers of disposal in clause 4 will then stem from a Labour Government who have a strong commitment to expand collections rather than to freeze acquisition funds. The Minister cannot duck the fact that, even in the years when he had some money from the Chief Secretary to dispose on our arts and cultural life, he deliberately chose not to unfreeze the purchase grants of the galleries. I am not surprised that the Minister looks away with some embarrassment. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister finds that worthy of a chuckle. If he finds it amusing that he did not unfreeze acquisition grants even in the years when he had the money to do so, he is in a bad way. The Government's record on acquiring works of art in those important national museums is nothing short of a disgrace, and the Bill does nothing to deal with the problem.
Towards the end of his speech, the Minister slipped in a remark about the change to indemnities that the Government have introduced. In case the Minister is becoming a little hard of hearing, I repeat that we welcome that change and believe that the Minister was wrong to put that provision in the Bill in the first place. He said that he received representations from directors and trustees last week. Will he confirm that, even until early yesterday afternoon, he was saying that that part of the Bill would stand? That is certainly what I have heard. I do not know what happened later yesterday afternoon to change his mind but I am delighted that it has been changed. He may inadvertently have misrepresented the position slightly because he gave the impression that representations were made just a week or so ago and that now he had changed his mind. Representations about the problems that accrue from that matter were made to him long before last week. I do not wish to put the Minister in an embarrassing position in case he changes his mind, but I am delighted that the Government have withdrawn the provision, even


though the Minister did not present the full picture. Nevertheless, I congratulate him on having had the courage to withdraw the provision. He was right to do so because it would be better to return to the conditions that pertain under the National Heritage Act 1980.

Mr. Renton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I first received representations from the directors in my box on Friday night when I returned from two days in Paris looking at the grands travaux.

Mr. Tony Banks: Oh.

Mr. Renton: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would appreciate that.
As for the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) about what happened yesterday afternoon, I am afraid that, in his rounds of the art galleries, the hon. Gentleman listens to too much gossip that comes out of SW1 at lunch times. That is where he happens to hear the little stories that he mentioned.

Mr. Fisher: Just as the House does not begrudge the Minister his long introductory remarks, it does not begrudge him his last trip to Paris as Minister. I hope that he enjoyed it, but I wish that he had gone earlier and had learnt from the French socialist Minister what a Government should do for the arts and how they should support it. I hope that he has learnt something from the majesty and beauty of some of those grands projets like Ieoh Pei's pyramid at the Louvre—[Interruption.] It is an extremely beautiful building. It is too late for the Minister to learn those lessons.

Sir Timothy Raison: In endorsing French socialist policy on the arts, does the hon. Gentleman support the French socialist policy of charging for museums?

Mr. Fisher: We do not support all the French Government's proposals. As the Minister fairly said, their museums have a different tradition. French museum curators envy us our wider access—or what was our wider access—and there is no reason why we should ape everything French. Although I have criticisms of Mr. Lang's policies, the French Government believe in the arts and the fact that Governments have a positive role to play, which is good. I am sad that the Minister has gone to Paris too late to be able to put into practice any of the lessons that he may have learnt.

Mr. Flannery: While respecting what the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said, let me say that we had a tradition whereby we did not pay to enter museums. That tradition was laid down clearly at the beginning of the last century. France has a different tradition. I think that our tradition is better than the French tradition. Therefore, surely the right hon. Gentleman never dreamed that we would accede to jumping over and supporting their tradition, whether it has come from a socialist Government or not.

Mr. Fisher: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend.
The Bill has been around for a long time and received much attention from the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Shoreham. It is extraordinary that, after such a long period of gestation, the Bill should come to the

House imperfect so that the Minister must make a change at five minutes to midnight. He has been rather arrogant in failing to listen to the perfectly objective and non-partisan advice of trustees and directors about the term of trustees. I hope that he will consider that again in Committee and that we can return to him on that point. 
Although we support the Bill and feel that it is a useful measure, with one or two provisos that I have already mentioned, we do not support the neglect that the Government have displayed towards those museums, their purchasing grants, repairs, maintenance, salaries, the gap between their grants and their obligations, and the fact that the shadow of charging lies over all of them from their other national museum colleagues. The Government's record on the care of museums has been nothing short of a disgrace for the past 10 years. The museums world cannot wait until 9 April for a change of Government. They will then get a Government who believe in museums and who do not make the type of extraordinary remark that the Minister made when he said:
Museums should compete with sports grounds for scholarship and education".
Can any Tory Member explain what the Minister meant by those words? They sum up the confusion, lack of policy and lack of clarity of the Minister's policies in the past year and of the Government's policies in the past 10 years. It is better that the Government go and we have a Government committed to improving our museums in the 1990s.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: Although I support the Bill enthusiastically, my support is not unqualified. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister accept a warm and generous tribute on bringing the Bill to the House this afternoon? Irrespective of what has been said in the past half an hour, I believe that he has given an excellent account of his stewardship of the arts on behalf of this country. 
Furthermore, I see in the Bill the handprint of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce). I shall always have tremendous affection and admiration for his work over a long period as Minister for the Arts. Against that background, I am not prepared—in the House, the country or a general election—to take the criticism that we have heard from the Opposition. 
When we consider the Government's track record, we hear a great hallelujah from the arts world. They say that the Conservative Government and the two Ministers I have mentioned gave them a three-year programme and that they could not have gone on, year by year, living hand to mouth with no opportunity to plan and create policies. We brought into being a three-year programme and then added to it a rolling programme to ensure an overlap and continuity.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman will be happy to know that the Select Committee on the Arts fought for that policy for years. As it forms part of the public and private funding of the arts—a major import—we dealt with all those aspects. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Shoreham for his work, and I profoundly agree about the three-year period because the one-year period simply did not work.

Dr. Blackburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I think that he would also agree that we have no vested interest in the subject. I openly confess that I do


not care whether the concept came from the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) or my right hon. Friend the Minister—I simply rejoice that it is there, and I believe that my rejoicing is echoed in the arts world. 
Public interest in the arts has grown enormously throughout the country during the past decade. Government policies—exemplified in the Bill—have resulted in increased Government funding. Let us quietly and soberly think about this "disgraceful Government" who have neglected the arts. By the same token, they have given a 30 per cent. increase in real terms in funding for the arts. I should like to see more such neglect; I want such neglect from a Conservative Government—they have increased funding by 38 per cent. in real terms, and they support the arts world. I believe that the arts constitute the life blood of society. They help to create character and enhance education. It is a blessing to have men and women with gift and talent in the arena of the arts. 
The Government have also given those in the arts greater opportunity to be masters of their own destinies. Do people object to that? We have heard time and again this afternoon that the wicked Conservative Government have no interest in the arts and are philistines. Let us consider what they have done. They have stated that funding of the arts can be encouraged from the private sector. It just so happens that my London home is adjacent to the Tate gallery, and as I pass there, morning and evening—

Mr. Flannery: So do I.

Dr. Blackburn: As does the hon. Gentleman. 
As I pass the Tate gallery, I unashamedly salute Barclays bank, Shell and the other companies that sponsor the arts. Instead of condemning them, we should support and salute them as they give funds, which is wonderful. The private sector contributed £500,000 12 years ago. I gently and respectfully disagree with my right hon. Friend the Minister, who said that the funds now stood at more than £40 million. I believe that the figure is even higher than that. 
I support the arts, which are precious to me; I support a Government who will support the arts as this Government have, and I salute anyone who is prepared to sponsor the arts. Those simple facts are enhanced by the Minister saying in clear terms that he wants value for money. That is a good expression for us all to live with. In order to get value for money for the Government's record amount of arts funding, the Minister says that the Government will streamline them and make them efficient. He reduced the number of local arts councils from 12 to 10.I have heard of no adverse effects as a result of that modest streamlining—other hon. Members can give their own accounts. 
The arts are the greatest blessing for people, both young and old, in forming their education and scholarship, and also in creating their character. I do not believe that anyone could visit the Clore gallery, spend two hours there and come out without their lives being enriched, irrespective of their standing in society. They all have the common desire to search for knowledge, and appreciate the beauty of the arts. 
By its very nature, the Bill centres on the metropolis, which I welcome. Like everyone else, I am proud to say that we are striving to make the metropolis the centre of

the arts world. That is why, when we make foolish criticisms, we should stop and consider that 1·5 million people go to the Tate gallery each year—there has been a modest increase of 2 per cent. in that figure in the past year. Large numbers of people also visit the national gallery and other such institutions. I am sure that other hon. Members will say amen to that and make a better contribution than I am. 
I have pledged myself as a disciple of the Bill. With my gift of prophecy I foresee that, after 9 April, the same Minister will be sitting on the same Front Bench representing the Conservative party. I want him to go on producing such measures, because the arts are alive north of Watford. 
Clause 2(1)(b) is the soul of the Bill. If I had to choose one part of the Bill I would stand by its aim of securing
that the works of art are exhibited to the public".
That is what art is about—exhibiting to the public. It has been openly confessed that 75 per cent. of the works collected in the Tate, apart from those used for research and those on travelling exhibitions, remain in the bowels of the gallery, which I find offensive. I utterly agree that we should
secure that the works of art are exhibited to the public".
It is no use me standing here and saying that that is what I want. I have an obligation as a Member of Parliament to support and implement that policy. At 2.30 this afternoon, I telephoned the art gallery in the town that I have the honour to represent—Dudley. I spoke to the art gallery's curator and said, "It is within my knowledge that the greatest work of art that you have in this modest little provincial art gallery is that of Joseph Mallord William Turner." To which he replied, "Yes." I asked, "When is it to be exhibited?" He said, "Monday, sir." In my humble, modest way, perhaps my phone call has ensured that a work of art is shown where people of the black country can see it, which is what it is all about. I would get just as much support for that if I were a Labour Member—my aim is to show people our wonderful gifts. We must exhibit, exhibit, exhibit—that is our role in the arts world. 
Clause 7 deals with donations. I thank God for all donators, no matter how high or humble, who donate their works, talents, gifts and products to the nation. In the middle of the last century there was a man whose father walked from Devon to London to find a job and opened a barber's shop in Covent Garden. He married the butcher's girl from next door, and as a result of that union Joseph Mallord William Turner was born. When he died in Chelsea, he left £180,000 and his desire was that the money should be given to support the young artists of this country which he loved. His second request was that all his works be given to the nation.

Mr. Fisher: And exhibited free of charge.

Dr. Blackburn: I am delighted that there is a common bond between us. Turner offered his life's work to the nation on condition that it be exhibited to the public free. The second condition was that the works of art should be housed as one collection. That dream was not realised until 1 April 1987, when, thanks to the generosity of the trustees of Mr. Clore, the Queen opened the Clore gallery. I have always been humbled and thrilled by that event, which represented the culmination of a wonderful life and donation to the nation. 
I want the Minister to write to me explaining the position of the Clore gallery. I want to know the general position of donations to the nation by men of talent such as the one I have described. 
This is an historic day in the life of the arts in this country. I wish the Bill godspeed. I am sure that one day, in our quiet moments, each of us who was involved in its passage will be able to say, as we pass the national gallery, the national portrait gallery, the Wallace collection or the Tate gallery, that we are glad of our stewardship in the honourable House that brought about this Bill. 
Finally, I should like to express a personal "thank you" to the Minister.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I cannot quite match the feeling with which the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) spoke, nor have I ever been moved, on pasing down the Embankment, to salute Barclays bank, British Petroleum or any other company. I have always been glad that many public companies have been willing to contribute to the arts, but I also recognise that they do so for not entirely altruistic reasons. They derive considerable kudos from such support, and there are also corporation tax advantages to be had from being generous to the arts and sport. 
I do not wish to join in the orgy of self-congratulation that appears to have broken out on the Government Benches, but I do agree with the part of the speech by the hon. Member for Dudley, West in which he drew attention to clause 2, which aims to secure that works of art are exhibited to the public. Quite so; it is precisely because of my anxiety that that may not always happen that I rise to make one or two criticisms of the Bill. 
First, however, I congratulate the Minister on having dropped clause 10, with the new section 16A(10), which would have made it more difficult for members of the public to see certain works of art exhibited in this country and abroad. That subsection would have made it less likely that works of art, particularly expensive ones that had to be insured at great cost, would be swapped temporarily or for long periods between galleries in this country and in the world at large. 
If it is our aim to ensure that the public can see works of art, anything that can be done to enable works of art to be moved around the country and around the world so that as many people as possible get to see them is desirable— so the Government opted for the best solution by dropping new section 16A(10). I wait to see what the Minister will table by way of substitution. My experience is that the Government sometimes substitute parts of Bills with provisions that are just as objectionable as the original parts that gave rise to complaint. We will wait and see. 
I want to address the House on the question of disposals, and particularly on disposals policy as it relates to the national galleries of Scotland. Of course there will be occasions when galleries will want to dispose of works of art. I am not an expert in the art world; some people would even call me a philistine—my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has often done so. I am the same as any other member of the public: I know what I like and do not like, or at least I think I do. 
I have found it difficult to join in what is known as the arts world or in the gatherings of art critics who tell us what is good and what is bad. I am certainly not in a position to say which up-and-coming artists should have their works included in an exhibition. I have always suspected that the successful ones were those who had attended the right wine and cheese parties. In any event, that is a matter for others, not for this House. 
I am worried that museums and galleries may be put in the invidious position of having to sell works of art that they want to keep in order to finance their continuing collection of new works of art. Worse still, they should not have to sell works of art to make ends meet. 
In 1985, the national gallery of Scotland was given a power that it never sought, enabling it to dispose of works of art. Some two years after the passage of legislation, one of the trustees wrote to The Times pointing out that they did not want the power and drawing attention to the fact that the Scottish Education Department had referred to the power in the 1985 legislation when considering the funding of the national galleries of Scotland. 
It seems perfectly obvious to me that, if art galleries are expected to dispose of works of art, the Government of the day will try to lean on the trustees or management of the institutions concerned to ensure that they sell works of art to fund day-to-day running costs or new acquisitions. That is thoroughly undesirable. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has already mentioned the problem that the Tate gallery may face because it will have a power of disposal that the national gallery does not have. It is difficult to legislate to specify exactly when a work of art can be sold and when it cannot, but I hope that we can agree that it would be deeply regrettable if works of art were sold into private collections with the result that people could never see them again. People acquire works of art sometimes to look at them but as often as not as assets. They might just as well own gold bars in a basement or a bank—they possess a work of art that no one will see. It will be regrettable if works of art now on display pass into private ownership and remain out of sight for years or even for centuries. 
I want to refer to the problem that the national gallery of Scotland faces. The Minister said that the Bill primarily deals with the national gallery, the Tate, the national portrait gallery and the Wallace collection, bodies for which he has direct ministerial responsibility. The national gallery of Scotland falls within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is not here. One might imagine that he had a great interest in national museums and art galleries, because he and his colleagues may find themselves hung in such institutions quite soon, so it would not be in their interests to put at risk their portraits or monuments by allowing them to be sold into private collections in years to come, when people have forgotten what they ever looked like. No Scottish Minister is here today, so the Minister for the Arts must answer the points that I am about to make, because the Scottish galleries are mentioned all too briefly in this Bill. 
The national gallery of Scotland faces the problem that, because it has the power to dispose of works of art, pressure will be brought to bear, as it has been already, to force it to dispose of works of art so as to fund its day-to-day activities or new acquisitions. The more serious problem is that it has already been made clear to the


gallery that it will not receive a donation because the donor is not prepared to run the risk that his donation will go from the gallery into private hands. 
This morning, I met Sir Denis Mahon, who is well known in the arts world. He told me that he is in an invidious position. He wants to donate a 17th-century Italian work of art to the national gallery of Scotland, but he does not want to run the risk that the gallery may be forced to sell it, or that the trustees will sell it on so that it is lost to public view. That is extremely serious, because art galleries depend on donations to fulfil their functions and the national gallery of Scotland may not receive a donation because the Government have given it powers which it did not want, for which it did not ask and which are downright dangerous. 
When he responded to the point that I made in an intervention, the Minister seemed uninterested. He said first that his Department had never heard of the problem. When pressed, he conceded that the Scottish Office had mentioned it, but, happily in his view, an official had come up with the view that, because of a technicality, the matter could not be dealt with in the Bill. 
However, I should like to press it upon the Minister that this is an extremely serious matter. There is no reason why the national gallery of Scotland should be more disadvantaged than the equivalent gallery in England. If it is good enough for there to be strong controls on the national gallery in England, why should not the same controls exist for a comparable gallery in Scotland? 
I shall be complimentary to the Minister, which is more than he was to me. He knows something about Scotland. I know that, since taking up office, he has visited Scotland two or three times. Indeed, I think that he owns or leases a part of Scotland on one of the islands. He must realise that there is a thriving arts world in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland, particularly Glasgow. The hon. Member for Dudley, West is no longer with us, but he made the point that there is a strong feeling outside London that the Government and the critics who write in London newspapers do not understand that there are thriving arts communities north of the M25. 
No one can understand why the national gallery of Scotland was given powers so detrimental to its functions and so highly damaging, especially when the gallery has been faced with the problem that it will not get an important donation because of powers which it did not want but which the Government forced on it. It Follows from this that I should like the Government to table a suitable amendment to the Bill, and I am confident that one can be found, to enable the national gallery of Scotland to be on exactly the same footing—not in a more favourable one—as equivalent galleries in England. 
The Minister spoke of hybridity and this point has already been raised. The definition of a hybrid Bill is:
a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class".
If the Bill can affect the private interest of four galleries in England, how can it be said to be hybrid if it were to affect the private interest of one Scottish gallery? The Minister should ask his officials to look at this matter again. 
I do not know what will happen in Committee. I hope that an amendment will be tabled. If necessary, it will have to be spoken to at great length. The Minister should not

get off the hook by fobbing off the problem that the national gallery of Scotland faces on the basis of a dubious legal technicality. 
That speaks volumes for the lack of interest and inactivity of the Scottish Office, which has not been prepared to advocate this cause with enthusiasm. The Scottish Office was alerted to the problem some months ago, but obviously it has done nothing about it. No Minister from the Scottish Office has turned up today. This Minister is clearly not briefed on the subject. This matter, like many others, could be adequately dealt with in a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. 
Those in the Minister's Department did not know about the problem, so it was not a problem, because it was out of sight of the galleries that they see in London and with which they are terribly familiar. They should remember that there are art galleries outside London which should be catered for. 
I hope the Minister will consider this point when the matter comes to Committee, or it will have to be pressed again and again. I do not know whether this was inadvertent, but I am sure that it was due to lack of interest and incompetence. I assure the Minister that it is deeply resented, and it is harmful to the interests of the national gallery of Scotland. It is in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom that we should have galleries in London and Scotland to collect and maintain works of art that the public can see, and that is not happening.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is deeply unjust. I answered his points completely and quickly and told him that the matter was under consideration by the Secretary of State for Scotland and does not come directly to me. As I understand it, the problem is one of hybridity, and the hon. Gentleman should know this and give credence to it. The other Scottish national institutions—the national library and the national museum—have not found any problems with the disposal powers given to them under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. I have a full brief on this matter, and I know that the director of the national gallery of Scotland has recently raised it. 
The hon. Gentleman described his conversation this morning with Sir Denis Mahon, and the possible bequest by Sir Denis to the national gallery of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman claimed that Sir Denis might not make that bequest if the disposal powers of the national gallery of Scotland were not changed to those that we are giving to the national galleries affected by the Bill. Why does not the gift of Sir Denis Mahon go to the national gallery of Scotland under a strict trust, binding in law on the trustees, that does not permit the picture to be sold? Why not follow that route?

Mr. Darling: The Minister might just as well apply the logic of that argument to the national gallery in London. If it is good enough for Edinburgh, it is good enough for London. I think that Sir Denis would find it unreasonable that, as a donor, he should be cautioned before doing anything else, and certainly before parting with a work of art, to go to a trust lawyer, no doubt an expensive one, to draw up the so-called trust. That is unreasonable.
The Minister did not say that the Secretary of State for Scotland was considering the matter. If the Secretary of State is considering it, I would welcome that, but the Minister rather gave the impression that the matter had been considered and then dismissed, because of the


hybridity argument. We shall wait to see what will happen in Committee, but, having had some dealings with the Minister in his previous job but one, I am not particularly optimistic. 
The Minister also mentioned the national library of Scotland—perhaps I should declare an interest as a trustee of the library—which has slightly different problems. Now that the national gallery of Scotland may not be getting a bequest that it had previously been offered, we should be on our guard and deal with such problems. 
The Minister's use of such a poor argument is unimpressive. Judging by his demeanour, I am not optimistic, but we can return to the matter in Committee, where it will no doubt be pursued. I just hope that the Minister accepts that there is genuine concern. A small amendment would solve the problem. If the only argument is hybridity, and if that argument could be overcome, a suitable amendment, perhaps framed by the Minister's draftsman, would be welcomed. 
There is a general welcome for the Bill. I cannot comment on that because I do not profess any knowledge of the majority of it. For the sake of completeness, and as the Minister was trumpeting his achievements and rather belittling those of local authorities, I should make this point. Next time he comes to Scotland—I feel that it will be under his own steam—perhaps he will look around Edinburgh. In addition to the national gallery and the national portrait gallery, the Edinburgh district council has done a tremendous job in building the local arts in Edinburgh. We were the first in Britain to get the Chinese exhibition "The Emperor's Warriors", although one would not have known it from reading the arts critics based here in London. We had "Pharaoh's Gold" and many other exhibitions. That is a splendid example of what a local authority can do in partnership with a public gallery and private money. I hope that the Minister will not belittle that. It ill becomes the Government to belittle the efforts being made by local authorities. 
I end where I started. If clause 2 is to have some meaning and the public are to have access to the arts, the Minister should think again, particularly with regard to the problem faced by the national gallery of Scotland to which I have drawn his attention.

Sir Richard Luce: I strongly welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on its introduction. It is his achievement, not mine. For a long time I wanted such a Bill to be introduced and it is my right hon. Friend's achievement to have produced it in a form that deserves the support of the House. I am glad that the Opposition intend to support the Bill. 
After 20 months it is nice to have another glimpse of the familiar debates on arts matters in the House. Nothing much has changed. The Government continue to display a fine record and to build up that record to make our achievement over the past 12 years even finer. The Opposition continue to lash around, looking back to the past in a rather neolithic fashion, being rather disparaging about patrons and going on about charges when they

know perfectly well, as my right hon Friend says, that that is a matter of choice for the trustees of the individual museums; looking back in anger. 
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is fascinated by the arts world and he knows a lot about it, but he does himself and the Labour party a disservice when he launches into an attack on areas of Government policy on the arts where our achievement is remarkable. For example, we have been working jointly with the private and public sectors in building up the great success story of our museums and galleries. The hon. Gentleman fairly said that he would like to examine the Government's policies, for which I had a heavy responsibility, on, for example, the freezing of purchase grants for institutions on which I followed the policy of my predecessor, as has my right hon. Friend. It is perfectly legitimate to examine such a matter, and before I conclude I shall suggest the right way forward for the 1990s, but the hon. Gentleman does himself and his party a great disservice when he attacks the Government in areas where there has clearly been a remarkable achievement. 
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not here. He is a familiar part and pattern of our debates on the arts, but he intervened earlier when he referred to the natural history museum. He and I have had many an exchange on that subject and on many others. A great compliment was paid me when a journalist on The Guardian, writing a piece which was intended to attack me bitterly on my policies on the arts, came to the conclusion in the last paragraph that
The best way to deal with Mr. Luce as Minister for the Arts is to have him stuffed and placed in the Natural History museum.
I cannot think of a nicer compliment. Long after the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has disappeared from the parliamentary scene and has been forgotten, in 200 years' time my great great grandchildren will go to the natural history museum and pay a good charge to contribute to improvements to that museum to see their ancestor who was once Minister for the Arts. I am proud of my association with the natural history museum. 
I support the concept behind the Bill and the work that my right hon. Friend has been doing. He has already struck a real chord in the arts world. He is clearly a man who knows about, understands, and has a great feeling and love for the arts. That has come across clearly. He is now, brick by brick, constructing further the Government's policy to help the arts to achieve even greater things. I congratulate him on that and I look forward to congratulating him in three and a half years' time on breaking my record of five years in office. I hope that he has a long time in the job. 
The Bill refers particularly to the four great national galleries and confirms the policy of encouraging a diversity of funding for those institutions. That principle is singularly important. That is why I was critical of so many Opposition Members for being so disparaging about patrons such as the Sainsbury family who have done wonderful things for our arts. 
Firmly embedded in the Bill is the principle that we should be able to manage our museums in a businesslike fashion; that they should be able to diversify their money so that they are not completely dependent on the Government, although the grant in aid is important; that they should be able to charge if they wish, but if not, that is fair enough and that they should make good use of the


commercial activities that can be based in such institutions, whether cafes or shops, and to encourage sponsorship.

Mr. Fisher: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes on to his next point, I am sure that he would not wish to misrepresent the Opposition's case. At no point in my remarks, today or previously, have I disparaged patrons. Indeed, I join the Minister in paying tribute to people such as the Sainsbury brothers for their generosity to the national gallery and to Mr. Clore and his daughter, Mrs. Vivien Duffield, for the Clore gallery. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I made no criticism of the generosity of such people. The nation owes them a great debt.

Sir Richard Luce: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has intervened and made clear his position. I was referring to some of the sedentary remarks during the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister when he was referring to the patrons. I am delighted that he has given such robust support to our patrons of the arts. 
My right hon. Friend referred to the record of refurbishment in the institutions, and that record is remarkable. It has been achieved by joint funding from the public and private sectors. The Sainsbury wing is a remarkable achievement and there is the new Berggruen collection, the refurbishment of the national portrait gallery, the new Tate gallery in Liverpool and all the great efforts that are being made to extend the accessibility of paintings to other parts of the country. My right hon. Friend has contributed to the extension of the St. Ives school of painting and the Tate gallery in the north. I am also glad that he mentioned Lord Wilson and the plan to invest about £20 million for the improvement of our museums and galleries. All that is good and remarkable progress in the right direction. 
The way in which my right hon. Friend has dealt with the question of disposals is right. I took the view that after a period of consultation with the institutions one should seek to tailor the policy of disposals to the interests, history and traditions of a particular institution. The Wallace collection is of its own kind; there are no acquisitions or disposals. The national gallery has another set of proposals and the Tate gallery another. That is the way to deal with the problem. 
If we are not to adopt a policy of radical disposals, a policy of great freedom, the mobility and accessibility of our works of art is vital. The provisions in the Bill to improve indemnity and to encourage the transfer of objects to other institutions are an important contribution. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could say something more when he replies about the Government's encouragement of more touring and exhibiting of works of art. 
I reached the conclusion some time ago that, regardless of the complexion of the Government, there is never adequate money for acquisitions, getting the fabric of our great national institution in an ideal state, and saving important works of art. The demands and pressures from Departments concerned with education, health, and other sectors are such that those three objectives cannot ever be wholly met by the taxpayers. I agree therefore with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that the best way forward in the 1990s is the introduction of a

national lottery. The sooner that the Government commit themselves to one, the better it will be for the arts, sport and other interests. 
A national lottery must never be seen as a substitute for public expenditure on the arts, but as a way of adding formidably to available resources.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a distinguished holder of the office of Minister for the Arts and I agree that sponsorship money must continue to be available. There would be so much demand for the resources available from a national lottery that I am not sure how much would be used for the purposes that the right hon. Gentleman and I have in mind. There is no real alternative to public funding.

Sir Richard Luce: Let us be clear. The Government have a remarkably good record on arts funding and there is no doubt that their commitment to maintaining support through taxpayers' money remains. However, we seek greater diversity of resources, which would strengthen the arts still further. I do not see a national lottery as a substitute for public expenditure, but as a way of substantially supplementing overall available resources in areas that one would not expect the taxpayer wholly to finance. 
I am glad to support the Bill and all the remarkable work done by the Minister. I may add, in what is probably my last contribution—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]—in the House, at least on the arts, that anyone who has enjoyed the privilege of serving as Minister for the Arts cannot but help form a great affection for all those who work in them. They do a wonderful job for the millions more people who seek to enjoy the arts today than did 20 years or 30 years ago. The Bill will play a modest part in that process.

Mr. Tony Banks: I mean no discourtesy, but I will have to leave the Chamber after my brief contribution, because I have a meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and that is important business. 
The right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) did a good job as Minister for the Arts, despite the constraints imposed on him by the lunatic policies of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). It is touching that he wants to end up as an exhibit, like Jeremy Bentham —stuffed and put on display in the natural history museum. I am not sure that I would pay money to see him, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman realises we would like him to go now—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and undergo that process of taxidermy. I may add that we on this side of the House intend at the general election to stuff the whole Conservative party. 
We have no ideological hang-up about private sponsorship of the arts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has often said, we are quite prepared to accept additional resources from that quarter. However, as the right hon. Member for Shoreham said, they must be truly additional, and not be used to replace core funding. 
Areas such as my own—and we have the Theatre Royal in Stratford—find it difficult to secure business sponsorship. We have some, and we are most grateful for the money that we receive from the London electricity board and the London Docklands development corporation.


However, the total sum is not very great. Thanks to Government policies, the recession has not left much of an industrial base to which an appeal for additional funds can be made. It is not easy trying to raise supplementary resources. 
The Minister quoted a figure for business sponsorship ranging from £500,000 to £40 million. While that is welcome news, one would like more evidence and detail to be certain that that is not simply a guesstimate by the Minister's officials.

Mr. Renton: That estimate was not mine, but that of the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts. I am sure that it will give the hon. Gentleman full details, if he requests them.

Mr. Banks: I am not altogether satisfied from the way those figures are collated that they present an entirely accurate picture. I will let that pass, but we need to know that money is available, and that it is not simply a figure that the Government assume—on the basis of a random selection of statistics from ABSA—is available as top-up, not replacement, money. 
The right hon. Member for Shoreham was probably alluding to my few remarks about the Sainsbury boys, to whom I referred as fat cats. They are—and they can certainly afford to give the support that they do. There is no such thing as a free lunch, either for the Sainsburys or for the arts, galleries, and museums—and not even for the right hon. Member for Shoreham. The money in question had to come from somewhere. 
I was only suggesting that all the people who buy their baked beans or whatever at Sainsbury are making a contribution to the arts through the checkout tills. We are grateful for those resources, but we must remember that there are also tax breaks for those who put money into the arts privately, so we should not fall to our knees and fawn at the feet of those who have an awful lot of money at their disposal. 
It is a good idea to allow galleries and museums to rationalise their collections from time to time, where there is an overlap. However, I am anxious that items for disposal should go to other public institutions, rather than to private collections. Perhaps we can draw out more detail on that aspect in Committee. Even an item that is in a reserve public collection and has been hidden away in a basement ought not to be sold to a private collection. 
Concern might be felt also by those who intend to bequeath items to public museums and art galleries, on the understanding that they will be kept in the public domain. That is true also of land and other property of the kind mentioned in the Bill. If such a bequest has attached to it a codicil stating that it should not be disposed of to a private collection, the museum or gallery must decide whether it will accept the gift on those terms. 
It would be cruel if people left their collection of cheese labels to a public institution, only to find after they have gone to the great museum in the sky, on looking down from their lofty heights, that their cheese labels were to be sold at Sotheby's or Christie's. 
A plaque outside the Horniman states that it was bequeathed to the people of London as a free museum. If

admission charges are imposed, that would clearly go against the good intentions of the individual who made the original bequest. 
I would like to ask the Minister directly whether, if the Bill goes through, as one assumes that it will because we on the Opposition Benches will give it a fair wind, it will, for example, allow the British museum to lend to the new Acropolis museum in Athens the Elgin or Parthenon marbles. That is an interesting concept, because they would be on public display. The new Acropolis museum has been designed specifically to entice back the Parthenon marbles. 
I am delighted that the leader of my party has said that that is what will happen, because it would be an act of great solidarity with our Greek friends. Many of us take holidays in Greece and we love the Greek people dearly. They would value and treasure far more their own national heritage, which we have got locked up in the British museum, than we do. We could have a polystyrene imitation of the marbles. I do not suppose that many people would notice the difference. In the meantime, those beautiful marbles could be restored to their rightful place in the wonderful city of Athens. Will this Bill assist such a transfer?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member may recall what I told his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). If the hon. Member wishes to leave his collection of cheese labels to the Geffrye museum, under clause 4 it is not at all difficult for him to do so with a trust or condition prohibiting or restricting disposal of the cheese labels. In the case of the Tate gallery, for example, the Bill specifically allows people making gifts to put conditions on them to prevent their being disposed of; in such circumstances, the trustees would be unable to dispose of them.

Mr. Banks: I want to know that my collection of cheese labels will be safeguarded for posterity and not, after the years that I have spent accumulating them, peeling them off little triangles of processed cheese, ending up at Christie's and being distributed to private buyers round the world; so I am delighted by that assurance. We are making some progress here. 
Clause 3(4) lists the objects of the national portrait gallery, which include the commissioning of "portraits of eminent British persons". I would like to record the fact that I commissioned from Feliks Topolski a wonderful painting of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I took it round in a taxi to the national portrait gallery and the snooty buggers refused it. Here I was, doing my best for the arts, and they refused it. It is a fine example of Topolski's work, and I hope that this little plug for it tonight will induce the trustees to accept a fine painting, not only by a fine artist but of a fine subject as well. 
I turn to the matter of museum charges. The Minister really must understand this, because he did not understand it in the course of the various interventions when he was speaking. We on the Opposition Benches do not oppose charging for special exhibitions; that has gone on for many years and will continue under a Labour Government. But it seemed to us wrong to change the ethos, the philosophy, of our museums, which is free access for general admission, as opposed to special exhibitions. 
If the trustees are given adequate resources, there is no way that they would voluntarily impose a charging regime. That must be a fact, because so many people who run museums and art galleries have said so, both to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. 
Charging is a bad move. It is no good saying that there has been no fall-off. There was an enormous fall-off in attendance immediately following the imposition of charges by museums. We cannot know who is not going, but we have to look round to see who is now unlikely to go. Many schools are no longer visiting museums, and many people who cannot afford even a modest admission charge will not go. 
A charge is a disincentive. Museums and art galleries are a wonderful heritage. They were established by many far-sighted people to act as a source of inspiration and education for ordinary people. A charging regime deters those people from visiting. It is wrong, and I am glad to hear that those on our Front Bench, when in government, will make sure that no museum has to impose charges for general admission, even though we make exceptions for special exhibitions. 
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to make a few comments. I will finish because I can see the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) straining at the leash, but I apologise for having to go off and see his colleague.

Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), like all the Opposition Members who have spoken, is strongly opposed to charges for general admission to museums. At the same time he, like those other Opposition Members, is in favour of greatly increased expenditure on museums and particularly on the acquisition of new works of art. Given the enthusiasm of the Labour party for taxation and its opposition to charges, perhaps we might get round this particular problem if museums were allowed to impose a small tax on visitors; the ideological opposition to charges might be dissolved by this semantic device. 
The debate so far has been enriched by the contributions of two distinguished Ministers for the Arts, the present incumbent and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce). One of their greatest contributions has been the encouragement of private sponsorship for the national collections which has gone up from £500,000 to more than £40 million. This is to be enormously welcomed. 
I also very much welcome the contribution made by the Sainsbury family. I recently visited their new wing. I salute the contribution that has been made by the Clore family and I have recently visited the Turner gallery. But I do not believe that we can expect private munificence on this great scale to continue in the future. At the same time, however, there are exciting possibilities just ahead for the expansion of both the national gallery and, in particular, the Tate. 
A few weeks ago the Secretary of State for the Environment called for suggestions on the future of Somerset house, once the civil servants begin to withdraw from that great building. In the public mind Somerset house has been associated for many decades with personal records. Perhaps it would be appropriate if the national portrait gallery were to occupy part of it in the future.

The Sainsbury wing opened with an exhibition of the royal collection of paintings. The Queen's gallery at Buckingham palace has been a great success. The state apartments in Windsor castle are magnificent. Yet much of the royal collection is still not adequately housed and accessible to the public. It might be appropriate in the future if, under the auspices of the national gallery, part of the royal collection was on display in Somerset house. 
My main concern is with the future of the Tate and, in particular, of the RAMC site which adjoins it on Millbank. Every time that I have driven past the site over the past decade, I have felt surprised that the Ministry of Defence continues to occupy it. I cannot believe that the RAMC, or indeed the Ministry as a whole, will continue to do so for the rest of the century. What will become of the site? Will yet another office block be built there? I feel that it has enormously exciting implications for the future of national collections and artistic life in the capital. 
Yesterday, I received a letter from the director of the Tate gallery. The director wrote:
The trustees of the Tate Gallery are still developing a strategy for their building plans. This is not a simple task as any new framework will determine the shape of the gallery well into the twenty-first century. They hope to complete an outline strategy by the autumn of 1992. However, it is already apparent … that they wish to renew the emphasis on the role of the Tate as the national gallery of British art, as well as of modern art … that this will require the permanent display of the nation's existing large holdings of several British artists and not just of Turner alone … that such displays might be devoted to Hogarth, Gainsborough, Reynolds, Blake, Constable, the pre-Raphaelites, Watts, Spencer, Moore, Nash, Sutherland, Nicholson, Hepworth, Bacon, Hockney, etc. … that such displays will require a significant addition to the present building … and that the natural location for this additional space would be across Atterbury street on the present RAMC site.
The director of the Tate went on to say:
It would therefore make good sense for the Government to make a commitment to offer the first option on the RAMC site to the trustees of the Tate, when the site becomes available. An early commitment would allow the trustees to develop a plan which makes best use of available resources. I agree. I believe that the Government should make the Millbank site available to the Tate for development when the RAMC moves out of its splendid headquarters and mess: it could provide accommodation for a number of artistic and heritage organisations that are currently scattered around the country. What we do not need is just another office block. I am afraid, however, that if and when the site is handed over to the land salesmen in the Ministry of Defence, a great opportunity will be lost for ever. 
We do not know when the RAMC will leave Millbank, but we do know that the Ministry of Defence will be selling substantial quantities of land in London in the not-too-distant future. I hope that the Office of Arts and Libraries will keep in touch with the MOD in regard to the cultural and heritage importance of a number of sites; the MOD's land administrators do not have a notable record when it comes to imaginative use of sites for heritage purposes. 
I agree with those who have said that the core of the Bill is contained in clause 4. Opposition Members have expressed doubts about the limited flexibility that is being given to the trustees of the Tate and the national portrait gallery to make disposals from their collections in certain very restricted circumstances. I consider that the clause is drawn too narrowly: I should like the powers of trustees to dispose of certain works to be widened somewhat.


According to some of this morning's newspapers, a great Holbein portrait is to be sold at Christie's on 15 April, along with a fine Canaletto and an equally fine Rembrandt. The pictures have been in historic houses for centuries—or, at least, for decades—but, as we know, pictures in such houses are coming on to the market in great quantities because of the current financial pressures: estate duty, taxes, inflation and falling farm incomes.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in expressing some disquiet about the fact that the owner of the pictures that he mentioned did not see fit even to discuss with any of the major galleries—the national gallery, for instance—the possibility of a private treaty sale? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will be very sad if that becomes the norm? So far, what has distinguished the responsible behaviour of the great private owners from the behaviour of others is the fact that, when they have needed to dispose of works of art, they have first tried to negotiate a sale with national galleries. I hope that this unhappy precedent will not be followed.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I entirely agree. The practice of trying to negotiate with the great national galleries is wholly desirable. I do not know whether the owners of the three paintings that I mentioned have followed that procedure—I have seen no statement from them—but we are clearly faced with a continuing problem in regard to the availability of works which would be an important addition to the national collections. Even with the most generous financial provision and the most successful national lottery, there will still be financial shortfalls. 
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was slightly critical of the new arrangements whereby the national gallery acquired two great pictures on the basis of instalment payments. It strikes me as quite sensible to adopt flexible financial arrangements for the acquisition of new pictures. 
In the case of disposal, too, there is room for increased flexibility. I should like to see in clause 4 a provision enabling the national gallery, the Tate and the national portrait gallery to lease some of their pictures. Leasehold is an accepted practice in the property market, and I do not see why it should not become, to a certain extent, a practice in the art world as well. The Getty museum has enormous purchasing power. Why should not some of the national gallery's pictures that are not of prime importance and some of the Tate pictures that are not, and cannot be, on display be leased for a period of five, 10 or even 25 years to people who are anxious to acquire them? That could bring some new money in and allow the national gallery and the Tate to increase their powers of acquisition. 
In a letter to The Independent, published today, the Minister, referring to the whole question of acquisition by the national collections and the export of works of art, says:
My prime concern … is to see that important treasures from our heritage, passed on in the past from one generation to another, remain as far as possible in this country for the educational enjoyment of the millions of Britons who visit museums, galleries and historic houses.

That is a very laudable objective, which we should all support, but I do not believe that the rigidity of clause 4 will help the Minister to achieve it.

Mr. Toby Jessel: It is a pleasure for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), who has contributed a number of original ideas on the subject of acquisition.
Clause 4 is a modest but worthwhile step in the right direction. The whole point of a work of art is that it should be enjoyed and perceived. It is utterly useless when locked up and stashed away in a cellar. A large proportion of the great museums to which the Bill refers keep a considerable number of their works of art below ground, or otherwise hidden from view, because there is no room to display them. Museums aim to increase their stock of works of art almost as an end in itself. That is wrong. We should move towards a situation in which it is considered quite normal for a museum either to lease works of art, as has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, or even, in certain circumstances, to sell works for the purpose of financing other acquisitions.
I take the point that people making bequests want those things to remain in the museums, but it is open to those people to make such a stipulation in, say, a solicitor's letter or by some other means. In the case of some past acquisitions, those considerations do not necessarily apply and I do not see anything intrinsically wrong with a vastly overstocked museum selling 50 unwanted items to enable it to make one valuable and enormously desirable acquisition—something that it and its visitors would cherish and would very much want to see on display. I would rather have a work of art in a private house, where comparatively few people would see it, than have it locked away in the dark under a museum, where no one would see it. 
I hope that we shall be able to move further in the direction indicated by clause 4 and that finance for acquisitions will be provided through a national lottery. This idea should have the support of the whole House. It certainly has the support of the vast majority of the members of my party. I was very pleased by the Minister's response to my intervention concerning the support that this concept has received from his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), and many other Conservative Members. A national lottery could produce large sums of money for museum buildings. It would create additional money, and certainly ought not to detract from what is already provided. We should have three sources of public support for the arts: support through existing grants, which, with the very impressive record of the Government, has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms; support resulting from the enormous growth in business sponsorship, which has been wholly beneficial and ought not to be disparaged in any way; and support in the future, I hope, through a national lottery. 
The Government's record in the arts is absolutely first class, and I believe that the country will support it in the next few weeks.

Mr. Fisher: This being a Bill which has general support from all corners of the House, we have had a wide-ranging and stimulating debate. In the context of a very sharp


disagreement about the value of the Government's policy, there has been a surprising—refreshing, some might say —degree of cross-party support for a number of key points. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) agree with us about the question of charging. The hon. Member for Beckenham's detailed knowledge of the Turner bequest enlightened everybody and demonstrated that his daily visits to the Tate have been put to very good use indeed. 
There is total cross-party regret at the fact that the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) may have made his last House of Commons speech on the arts. Members on both sides have paid him very deserved compliments for his parliamentary defence of the arts. He paid a very generous, but very correct, tribute to the people in the arts world —the administrators, the artists, the designers and the writers—who bring such distinction to this country and such enrichment to our communities and ourselves. I expect that our tribute will be echoed by those people, who know that during the right hon. Gentleman's five years they had a Minister who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, struggled valiantly against the then Prime Minister's hostility. He deflected much of the pain from the arts world. Few holders of his office will be remembered with so much affection in that world, even if the people in it did not always agree with the right hon. Gentleman's judgment and his ability to dispense money. There was cross-party support for his remarks tonight. 
There is also cross-party support for the fact that the Minister has dropped the indemnity clause. In this regard, however, there are still some areas of disagreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, it will be very important to see what replaces that clause. Let us hope that the Minister will avoid the need for another withdrawal. This time he should consult closely the galleries and museums concerned, and he should do so quickly, as hon. Members wish to proceed to the Committee stage and will want a reasonable period to consider the Government's suggested replacement. If the Minister has to balance the two, I hope that he will consult widely and carefully so that this time he gets it right. 
There was also disagreement, to which we shall return in Committee, about gifts. In his very well argued and well-researched speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central laid particular emphasis on the contribution that people such as Sir Denis Mahon have made to the arts world and their enormous generosity as benefactors. My hon. Friend rightly fears that that generosity could be inhibited. The Minister should reconsider his advice. He thinks that the answer to the problem is for potential benefactors to consult their lawyer and enter into trust deeds to protect their gifts. 
If the Minister had stopped for a moment to consider the implications of his remarks, he would have realised that what he was saying to them was, "In order to protect yourself against this Act of Parliament, you should take legal advice and enter into expensive legal trust deeds." It is nonsense for the Minister to recommend people to take legal advice to protect themselves against possible future eventualities. However, we shall return in Committee to the question of gifts. I hope that by then the Minister will also have had a chance to think again about the time that people should serve as trustees. 
The Minister knows that when the Bill is considered in Committee he will have to explain what exactly is the difference, in his view, between the national gallery, which he believes should not have powers of disposal, and the Tate gallery and the national portrait gallery. The Minister has had an easy ride today, but he knows that he faces a difficult job in Committee. He has given in to very persuasive advocacy by one gallery but not to the pleas that were made on behalf of the others. He has not treated them in an even-handed way. He may, however, explain that in his closing remarks. 
In general, there is widespread support for these measures. We welcome them, as well as the right hon. Gentleman's role in their birth. He was very modest about his own contribution and paid tribute to the previous Minister for getting the Bill on the Floor of the House. The House knows, however, that we owe something to him for it. Although there is cross-party support for the Bill, the wider picture will continue to be fiercely argued and disputed on the Opposition side. I believe that we speak for most of the museums world and arts world. The Government's record over the last 12 years is a disgrace. [Interruption.] We need not argue about it any longer. The public will decide in a few weeks. I believe that they will agree with the Opposition that, although the Bill is a useful measure, the most useful thing that this Government could do would be to go and to leave the arts to a Government who care about them and are prepared to make a commitment to them.

Mr. Renton: It is a pleasant change for me to be able to agree for once with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) in the generous tribute that he paid to my very distinguished predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce). My right hon. Friend has been my neighbour in West Sussex for many years and he is a personal friend. One of the great pleasures of taking on the arts job was to know that I was continuing down a path where he had set a very clear and fine record. I have always appreciated his advice and wisdom. 
If this is to be the last occasion on which my right hon. Friend speaks on an arts subject in the House of Commons, all of us will be pleased that his connection with the arts is to continue, both as president of the Compass theatre—that well-known and successful touring company—and as president of the voluntary arts network. It will be a great pleasure to us all, therefore, that in one guise or another we shall continue to be reminded by my right hon. Friend of the proper way to do things in the arts world. I am glad that he has been here today. He was the progenitor of the Bill. I am pleased that at last we have found legislative time for it. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central for his help today on Second Reading. I am sure that he will continue to support the Bill in Committee. 
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham referred to the encouragement of travelling exhibitions. I can assure him that we continue to encourage the national museums and galleries to ensure that their holdings are as widely seen as possible throughout Britain. That is being encouraged in a number of ways, most particularly at outstations, as they are called—for example, the Tate of the north in Liverpool and, in future, the Tate of the west


in St. Ives. The Tate of the north in Liverpool is holding a major exhibition of the paintings of Lucian Freud, many of which come from the Tate's own collection. 
We also encourage the national museums and galleries to make major contributions to exhibitions in other local museums and galleries. The most recent example is the exhibition of design from the 1950s at Manchester, which I had the opportunity to see, many of the items for which were lent by the V and A. Above all, help is channelled all the time through the Museums and Galleries Commission and the area museums councils. As long as I have this ministerial job, I am determined to continue to encourage increased access to central national collections by means of exhibitions in local museums and galleries. 
All of us will have been moved by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) and by the eloquence with which he spoke of the beauty and importance of the arts. The curator of Dudley art gallery will be amazed and delighted to find that my hon. Friend's telephone call to him today and the fact that he is to exhibit a Turner in his gallery next Monday has been commented on in the House of Commons this afternoon and that for ever it will find a place in Hansard. As he spoke, I was reminded of Turner's own words. His customary remark, following the sale of one of his paintings, was, "I've lost one of my children this week." I feel that that is a remark with which my hon. Friend can very much associate himself. Only yesterday evening I was at the Tate looking at the exhibition of Turner's works, "The Fourth Decade", in the Clore gallery, thanks very much to the sponsorship of Agfa. The exhibition contains some very delightful and interesting watercolours. I know that the members of the Clore family, particularly Sir Charles Clore's extremely generous daughter, Vivien Duffield, will have been very pleased to hear my hon. Friend's remarks about the Clore gallery. 
As to the extremely interesting comments of another very old friend of mine, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), I thank him for his support for flexibility in both the disposal and acquisition arrangements. I agree with him. I suspect that we shall have to look at this question very carefully over the years. I was interested in what he said about clause 4 and the advantages of leasing. There are difficulties about leasing. It is labour intensive. It requires additional staff. That would need to be funded and the leasing arrangements would have to be closely monitored. I suspect that it would be better to look in more detail at the concept of outstations, to which I referred in my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham. 
As to my hon. Friend's point about the RAMC site, I am aware of his close interest in the site and of his correspondence with Mr. Nicholas Serota. I understand that there are no immediate plans to dispose of that site, but my office is in touch with the Ministry of Defence about a possible use for the site, should disposal of it ever be considered. 
The interest in the arts of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is well known to hon. Members. He is probably the best pianist in the House. He has been a strong and good chairman of our Back-Bench committee for some time. I was pleased to receive his support for clause 4, the key clause. I know that he

supports a national lottery as a potentially very useful source of money for the arts, in particular for the funding of capital projects. I see that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is pointing to his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I have nothing to add to what I have already said to him. I have made my position absolutely clear. If he wishes to raise the matter in Committee he will be able to do so. 
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central emphasised that the office of trustee should be held for seven years, not five. I regard that as very much a Committee point. I think that five years is about right. It works for both sides and it is not out of the way for someone who has served for five years to be reappointed for another five years. It is not a point of great substance, but we can return to it in Committee. 
I have greater difficulty on the issue of purchase grants. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central knows the arts world well enough to know that purchase is by no means the only way in which our great national galleries have been acquiring pictures in recent years. They have been helped by personal gifts and by the national heritage memorial fund, for which we have recently increased the funds available from £3 million to £12 million. They are helped by objects of art that come to them through acceptance in lieu. Since 1980, the national gallery, the Tate gallery and the national portrait gallery have acquired, through acceptance in lieu—it has nothing to do with their purchase grant—pictures with a market value of nearly £24 million. The price paid was just under £12 million.
Any gallery director would like his purchase grant to be increased. He would be crazy if he did not. It is his job to say that he would like more money from the Government, the local authority or the sponsor. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central knows that there are many other routes that the great galleries and museums have successfully used in recent years in order to acquire pictures, sculptures and other works of art.
As my hon. Friends have stressed throughout this short but interesting debate, our record of funding the arts has been enormously positive, not just our funding for the Arts Council, but in the very much larger sums of money that we are making available—for example, for the building and refurbishment projects in the national museums and galleries. We are making available £196 million over the next three years, more than £;60 million a year. That is much larger than the figure five or six years ago. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central should give us credit for that, but he finds it difficult to accept that there is any good in the extremely positive record of the Conservative Government. What are his alternatives? By and large, the Labour party would kill off the sponsorship goose, which is increasingly laying a larger and larger golden egg. That would be £40 million gone. The Labour party's policy on charging would make museums poorer and would interfere in their activities. That would be another £40 million gone. We have a fine arts record. By contrast, the Labour party has a purely destructive and negative record without any new ideas. 
This is probably the last aria of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central before the final curtain falls. I remind him of the beautiful but sad words from "Macbeth":



"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more".

As he struts no more, the hon. Gentleman can take comfort from the fact that a new dinosaur gallery is opening in the natural history museum in April. I have no doubt that he will find himself one of the earliest acquisitions in that gallery. 
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Museums and Galleries Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown for making payments under or by virtue of the Act;
(b) any administrative expenses of a Minister of the Crown which are attributable to the Act; and
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other enactment out of money so provided.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security Administration Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the first of six Bills relating to social security that are before the House this evening. They all relate to the consolidation of statutes relating to the state system of social security, so I shall, with permission, speak to all six together. 
These Bills between them represent the first consolidation of all the United Kingdom statute law on social security. The first three relate to Great Britain. The other three contain corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland. 
The Social Security Administration Bill is concerned, as its name implies, with the administration of the social security system. It deals with matters such as the payments of benefits, adjudication, enforcement and uprating. 
The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill deals with the contributions on which certain social security benefits depend, and also with the various benefits themselves. It covers a wide range of benefits from unemployment and sickness to child benefit and the Christmas bonus to pensioners. 
The Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill contains repeals and consequential and transitional provisions arising out of the other two Bills.
As I have said, the other three Bills relate to Northern Ireland and have the same purpose as their Great Britain counterparts. They are the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill, the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill and the Social Security (Consequential Provision) (Northern Ireland) Bill. 
In preparing the three Great Britain Bills, the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission have, in accordance with normal practice, issued a report on the consolidation in which they make a number of recommendations for minor amendments that are necessary in order to produce a satisfactory consolidation. For the Northern Ireland Bills, the Lord Chancellor laid before Parliament in November last year a memorandum containing a number of corrections and minor amendments that were needed in order to facilitate the consolidation. That was in accordance with the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. 
All six Bills were referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills during their passage in another place. The Joint Committee has since reported, on 11 December 1991, its approval of the minor amendments and corrections referred to in the report of the Law Commissions and in the Lord Chancellor's memorandum. 
I believe that the House will wish to join me in congratulating the respective Law Commissions and draftsmen, here and in Northern Ireland, on their prodigious industry in bringing this project to fruition. The work involved has been enormous, and will be greatly appreciated by those who have regular recourse to this area of the statute book, especially those who advise clients about their right to claim benefits.

Mr. John Fraser: I start where the Attorney-General finished, by congratulating the Law Commissions and the parliamentary drafstmen on their work on this and the other Bills in the series. I shall also speak to all six Bills together, as I hope that it will shorten our proceedings. 
The legislation is important, but a glance at one of the Bills will show that it is also complex and technical. However, it is law that is mainly for laymen, not lawyers. Consolidation means that those who need to look for this branch of law need search in only one jungle instead of several, as they have to do now. Therefore, as always, I welcome consolidation. 
Welcome for the Bill and support for the measure, which is being prepared under the aegis of the Law Commission, do not excuse the Government's lamentable and pathetic record on implementing the work of the Law Commission. The Attorney-General spoke of the enormous use of resources in bringing together a vast number of statutes into six related consolidation measures. I wonder whether that acts to the detriment of other law reform. 
We have a report from the Law Commission on the table. However, since 1984, only 11 of 33 reports have been implemented. Of 12 reports in 1988 and 1989, only two have been implemented. There is a whole series of law reports, which I would not be allowed to refer to in detail, but which includes measures on international fraud, corroboration of evidence, the wholly unjust liability of original lessees, a Bill to facilitate the use of the Welsh language in conveyancing and the rights of widows on intestacy, on which nothing has been done. 
Although the Government have drafted this Bill, their record on the other law reforms that flow from the work of the Law Commission has been a disgrace. Our praise for this Bill should not obscure our condemnation of what we regard as the Government's slothful and neglectful reaction to most of the work of the Law Commission.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I also welcome the consolidation because the flow of legislation—primary and subordinate—from this Government in particular and from previous Governments in general has been massive, as the Attorney-General knows. I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on delegated legislation, which frequently asks the Department for consolidation of subordinate legislation, so it is pleasing that primary legislation has been subjected to the same process. 
I want to deal especially with the measures which affect England, Wales and Scotland. Consolidation is especially important because there is an intricate web for applicants. We should never forget that it is difficult for applicants to find their way through the social security network to get the payments which are necessary for people in a very poor and often vulnerable position. 
The consolidation will not provide an easy guide but it will help to provide a helpful, consolidated and largely single source of help and guidance for those who become expert in it in the advice centres which are available to many people. We hope that the consolidation will be used to provide an authoritative guide, and I hope for two things. 
First, as the legislation will be used by many people who in turn give help and advice to perhaps hundreds or thousands of people who visit advice centres, the price must be kept as low as possible. The price has rocketed under this Government, to the point at which it is prohibitive even for some public institutions. This is not the Attorney-General's responsibility, but I urge him to recommend to the Department of Social Security that it keeps the price within a practicable limit to help organisations. 
Secondly, it might be helpful if copies were available at each social security office. It is true that many people would not be able to fathom the legislation because it is complex, but it would be helpful if a reference copy were available to those who were interested. As we make the legislation, and as this consolidation has been designed to remove the difficulties of examining disparate documents by, in this instance, putting them into three Acts of Parliament, surely we should encourage people to read the Acts and to use them as sources. 
To do that, we must make them available, but unfortunately, for the most part, copies of legislation or Acts of Parliament are too expensive for the ordinary person to obtain. Of course, they are too expensive for the applicant for social security to obtain. 
Many local authorities are now so short of money that, whereas at one time they might have bought these reference documents as a matter of course, they are seeking documents that they can drop from their list and, in the case of a reference library, this legislation might be one of those documents. That is a misfortune and the Government should at least try to assist people in the provision of this information. 
Having made those qualified remarks, I always welcome consolidation. If we send out a great deal of confused and patchy legislation, that is a failure on our part which makes it hardly surprising that citizens fail to comprehend it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Boswell].

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell].

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell].

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Boswell].

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move,
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1992–93 (Revised) (House of Commons Paper No. 247), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 February, be approved.
I understand that it will be convenient for us also to discuss the next two motions:
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 4) (House of Commons Paper No. 241), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 February, be approved.
That the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 3) (House of Commons Paper No. 153), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.
The reports before the House contain my decisions on the local government revenue settlement for 1992–93. Since my statement to the House on 13 January the Government have announced that they are recommending acceptance of the teachers review body report on pay and providing additional resources to help local education authorities meet the cost of the pay award. Last summer, in considering the local authority settlement for 1992–93, the likely pay bill for teachers was one of the matters that I took into account. In the event, the pay settlement, which will add 7·8 per cent. to the pay bill of education authorities, was somewhat higher than I had allowed for. I have therefore provided an additional £3·5 million in revenue support grant to bridge the gap. I believe that this underlines our commitment to ensuring that the dedication and achievements of our teachers are properly rewarded.
The additional resources are included in the revised revenue support grant and distribution reports before the House tonight. The original RSG and distribution reports, which were laid on 20 January, have been withdrawn.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Hunt: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and then to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).

Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry to intervene so early, but the Secretary of State has gone straight into the question of funding the pay award. Is there any truth in the rumour that he intends to redistribute the grant in part from the district authorities to the county authorities, in order to cover some of the costs of the settlement?

Mr. Hunt: The reports are all clearly before the House. I have no proposals to change the figures in them.

Mr. Rowlands: I asked a specific question.

Mr. Hunt: No, there is no truth in the rumour. I said no. The figures are set out in the reports, and they are clearly before the House tonight.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Calculations were made for the education budget for the coming financial year when the original document was laid before the House last summer, and the Secretary of State is now talking about an underestimate. Will he tell the House how much local


education authorities will have to draw from their own resources to cover the extra amount that will not be covered by the additional grant that the right hon. Gentleman has announced?

Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we cannot hypothecate the standard spending assessment. As part of local authorities, local education authorities receive an overall SSA. For Welsh counties the SSA increased on average by 8·1 per cent. That is well ahead of inflation, and —given the scope for efficiency savings over the range of services that counties provide—it represents a substantial sum. However, I realise that the recommended award is higher than I had expected, and I have therefore provided additional money to take account of that.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I touched upon the matter that I am about to raise earlier today, in the Welsh Grand Committee, but there was no chance to follow it up. My local county council, Gwynedd, told me today that the 7·5 per cent. increase will not only affect teachers' salaries, but will have a knock-on effect on several salary bands and expenses. There will be a shortfall of £500,000 in the budget, even after allowing for the proportion of the £3₷5 million that will come to Gwynedd. If that is the case, can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, if it is necessary to increase the poll tax in order to raise that money, Gwynedd will not be capped for doing so—regrettable though the increase may be?

Mr. Hunt: The amount allowed for Gwynedd in the standard spending assessment settlement is increased by £9·5 million—6 per cent. That is a reasonable increase, bearing in mind all the demands. Gwynedd will also receive a share of the additional money that I have provided. The hon. Gentleman asked about capping—I should like to return to that subject in a few moments. 
There should be no need to resort to unjustified cuts in numbers of teachers or in any other elements of the education service—or to increase community charges. I believe that all the points that have been raised have been allowed for in the settlement I announced.
It might be helpful if I summarised the main features of the settlement. Total standard spending for 1992–93 is £2,608 million—that is equivalent to £1,195 per charge payer in Wales. That is an increase of 8·7 per cent. over the comparable TSS figure for 1991-92 and it is well over one percentage point more than the equivalent increase for English local authorities. The aggregate external finance, which now encompasses the community charge grant, for 1992–93 now stands at £2,352 million. If one takes the equivalent figure for 1991-92, it represents an increase of 6·9 per cent. That means that charge payers should expect to contribute less than 10 per cent. to the cost of local government services in Wales.
I am making available £40 million under the community charge reduction scheme. If one also takes into account the community charge benefit, the contribution from Welsh charge payers will fall to around 7 per cent. That means that 93 per cent. of the cost of local government services will be provided from central Government resources.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: rose—

Mr. Hunt: I shall give way after I have finished this point about the key figure. If authorities spend in line with TSS, it will mean an average community charge payment in Wales of about £85.

Mr. Morgan: I am absolutely astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's words. He said 93 per cent. of the costs will be met from central Government resources. He seems to assume that the uniform business rate, having been collected from local industry and dispatched to central Government, becomes the gift of central Government to give back to the local authorities. Those authorities used to collect it separately anyway. Surely he realises that that money is not equivalent to a Government grant, but represents local business taxes.

Mr. Hunt: As a result of legislation passed in the House, the non-domestic business rate is redistributed nationally by the Government. The Government do not have some special money that they produce at the Royal Mint. The Government are always redistributing resources whether they come from income tax, value added tax, the uniform business rate or whatever. I do not see the point of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. 
Let me break down the figures. Within the aggregate external finance package, the revenue support grant total for 1992–93 is £1,621 million. The total allocated for revenue specific grants is £195 million and the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating account is £536 million. The Welsh non-domestic rate poundage for 1992–93 will increase by more than 4 per cent. to 42·5.
The distribution report before the House sets out the calculations for each authority's standard spending assessment. Those have been recalculated to take account of the increase in resources for teachers' pay. However, to achieve consistency, it has also been necessary for me to take account of other data changes. They include a number of credit approvals for capital spending which affect the loan charges element of individual authorities' SSAs. All the changes have been handled in accordance with the distribution formulae agreed with the local authority associations. The overall average increase in SSAs for the coming financial year is more than 8 per cent. after making allowance for the higher education institutions that are to leave the local authority sector on 1 April 1992. The average increase for counties is 8·1 per cent. and for districts 8·7 per cent.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State now appears to count it as a virtue that 93 per cent. of local authority expenditure will be met from central Government and 7 per cent. only from the local poll tax. Is my memory correct, because I recall that, when the Secretary of State and his colleagues were trying to sell the poll tax, one of its chief virtues was meant to be the accountability of local government to its local poll tax payers? In the light of the 7 per cent. contribution from those people, where does the accountability argument now stand?

Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman thought about it, he would understand that the figures sharpen accountability —[Interruption.] Of course they do. The hon. Gentleman's inference is much more serious because I have been searching for some considerable time for a suggestion from the Opposition as to whether they would maintain Wales's grant advantage. The hon. Member for


Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that he felt that about the right amount to be raised from local taxation was 20 per cent.

Mr. Anderson: What about accountability?

Mr. Hunt: I am not talking about accountability at the moment; I am talking about the real bill for Welsh people.
In Committee today I tried to allow the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to intervene so that I could obtain that information. He did not do so, so we still have the question about what would happen to the Welsh grant advantage. If we had the tragedy of a Labour Government returned to office and if they allowed for local people to raise 20 per cent. of the contribution towards local expenditure, local bills for local people in Wales would treble. That is why the Opposition owe us an answer on that crucial point. I hope that we will hear it tonight.
I am firmly of the view that the levels of increase will enable local authorities to maintain and develop services without placing an unreasonable burden on charge payers. They are significantly in excess of inflation and, based on conclusions reached by the Audit Commission, I believe that there are also substantial efficiency savings available to local authorities. As I told the House on 13 January, I plan to meet the Welsh local authority associations shortly to discuss their future plans for efficiency initiatives. They have achieved much already, but I think that they would acknowledge that there is still much that can be accomplished.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The right hon. Gentleman said that SSA settlements were in excess of inflation, but the SSA for Powys is just 6·2 per cent. even when allowance is made for the teachers' salary increases. Why is it that the mathematical analysis that has produced that SSA discriminates against the charge payers of Powys, who have set their poll tax at £100, right on the right hon. Gentleman's target?

Mr. Hunt: I am always concerned for the hon. Gentleman when he produces wrong figures, so may I put the record straight?
In Powys the SSA rises from £87·670 million to £93·187 million. That is an increase of £5³517 million, which is equivalent to a 6·3 per cent. addition. Compared with the 1991–92 budget in Powys, that SSA is 8 per cent. higher. It is the highest increase on last year's budgets of any of the counties in Wales.
If one assesses that SSA per head—I realise that I may be causing dissension elsewhere in the House—which county of all the Welsh counties receives the largest SSA per head? The answer is Powys. It receives £1,019 per head.

Mr. Livsey: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Powys is by far the most sparsely populated county in Wales. What has happened now is that the relativity between Powys and the other county councils has reduced.

Mr. Hunt: Let me give the hon. Gentleman the exact figures. I do not want this to turn into a debate about Powys, but it is important for the people of Powys to know the facts. Aggregate external finance in Powys will rise from £70 million to £84 million. Therefore, the external finance towards a budget of £93 million will be £84 million. Working out the increase in SSA per head, one sees that Powys receives the largest increase over 1991–92 for the

year 1992–93. The increase in Powys is larger than in any other county in Wales and amounts to £70 per head. Therefore, I hope that we have heard the last of that, but if there is any dispute over the figures the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) will no doubt come back to me.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate what might happen to community charge payers in Powys if the Liberal Democrats' policy were implemented? The paper "Shaping Tomorrow's Local Democracy" says that the Liberal Democrats propose a cut in revenue support from central Government. It says:
as soon as practicable the proportion of the total tax revenue which is raised at local, as opposed to national, level … must be very substantially increased".

Mr. Hunt: I should be delighted to hear what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has to say about that because it would be bad news for Powys if the Liberals got anywhere near control. They have already said that local councils should raise far more of the money that they spend. They want increased accountability but they would increase the bill of people in Powys.
Taking into account the proposed increases for 1992–93, the average increase in Welsh districts' SSAs for 1991–92 and 1992–93 taken together is more than 30 per cent. That is an increase in SSA over only two years. The average increase for Welsh counties, after making allowance for the changes in higher education, is 24 per cent. over two years. Those are significant increases and they confound any argument that the Government are not committed to the adequate resourcing of local government in Wales.
I am aware of complaints that the standard spending assessments system does not properly reflect the needs of individual authorities and gives rise to volatile changes in individual authorities' SSAs year on year. The methodology for determining SSAs for 1992–93 has, as in years past, been agreed with the associations through the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. It is time-consuming and often contentious work and I pay tribute to the associations for their efforts in achieving fully agreed conclusions.
The starting point for those discussions is that change should be limited to what is essential. I am in full agreement with the local authority associations that stability should be preserved unless there is a good reason for change. An important change to the district authority formulae for 1992–93, which the Council of Welsh Districts considered essential, has been the reduction in the distributive effect of the composite social indicator to 4 per cent. of the overall current SSA for district authorities. The composite social indicator—CSI—was included in the formulae for the 1990–91 settlement at the request of the CWD, with the intention of redistributing funds to those district authorities that suffer relative social deprivation. The CWD now considers that the CSI mechanism over-compensates those authorities, and so the Welsh Consultative Council agreed to the CWD's request for a change in 1992–93. I hope that that explains the background to the system.
SSAs should also reflect the changing circumstances of individual authorities. To that end, the distribution model uses financial and non-financial data supplied by local authorities. That includes population changes and the


level of individual authorities' borrowing that affect loan charges. For those reasons and others, the position of local authorities relative to one another inevitably changes year on year.
I believe that the SSA arrangements are sound and that there are good reasons for the changes which affect individual authorities' SSAs.

Mr. Morgan: Some Opposition Members are not quite as bright as the Secretary of State. At least, we are not quite as well briefed on the intricacies of how those measurements are arrived at. Hon. Members on both sides of the House and probably leaders of the local authorities and their officers would like to eliminate much of the unnecessary quarrelling over the exact definitions of the allowance to be made for inflation. Has the Secretary of State managed to agree with the local authorities, or even just with their treasurers, what the proper rate of increase should be in the coming year for what could be called a "service standstill" budget? That would take into account all the extra costs that local authorities face, because it is a much more labour-intensive service than the average basket of goods. The retail prices index of inflation is irrelevant. What is the rate of increase that local authorities and the Minister's specialists agree is required to maintain services at the same level next year?

Mr. Hunt: That is precisely what is discussed at the Welsh Consultative Council for Local Government Finance. In all my experience as a Minister responsible for local government finance in England, I never knew a local authority publicly to say, "Thank you very much, we do not want any more". I remember a Labour Minister telling local authorities that the party was over. There has always been a conflict between central Government and local government about the appropriate level of spending, but in Wales we have a particularly effective mechanism. We sit round a table and argue the points through, which is the function of the Welsh Consultative Council for Local Government Finance. I pay tribute to the local government officials and leaders—[Interruption.] We do not agree a figure. I put what I believe to be the appropriate level of spending in the TSS —

Mr. Morgan: Is that a bank or a building society?

Mr. Hunt: It is neither a bank nor a building society. It means total standard spending and is the sum total of all the standard spending assessments in Wales. That is the key figure, which I believe has been increased appropriately.
I hope soon to submit for the approval of the House, a special grant report setting out arrangements for the payment of an additional £6 million that I am providing to fund 75 per cent. of the estimated revenue cost of council tax implementation. It would be inappropriate for the report to be laid before Parliament until it has given its consent to the Local Government Finance Bill. Standard spending assessments under the settlement for 1992–93 do, however, make provision for the 25 per cent. of that expected expenditure, which is not met and will not be covered by the special grant.
I announced on 13 January that I shall provide £40 million under the community charge reduction scheme for 1992–93. In deciding on the appropriate level of funding

for the coming year, I have taken account of both the significant reduction in community charge levels that has been achieved through community charge grant for 1991–92, and the increased level of revenue support grant that I am providing for 1992–93. About 56 per cent. of charge payers in 500 communities will continue to receive community charge relief. The amount that I am committing to the scheme is double that provided in 1990–91, when the community charge for standard spending was £55 higher than the level that I consider appropriate for 1992–93.
Provided that local authorities spend in line with my plans, the personal community charge that they set should not exceed, on average, £118. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may be only just beginning to understand what I am saying. The important issue is the increase in TSS, which is the appropriate increase in all the circumstances. That £118 is less than half the equivalent figure for English authorities and £ less than the average charge of £121 set by Welsh authorities for 1991–92. Relief under the community charge reduction scheme for the coming year should reduce the average community charge in Wales to £100. When account is taken of community charge benefit, the average charge falls further to about £85.

Mr. Anderson: The Secretary of State will recall that the Prime Minister called the poll tax "uncollectable". On what assumptions is the Secretary of State working in respect of the proportion of the total sum capable of being collected by Welsh authorities, given that there is ever greater public resistance to it? Perhaps "resistance" is the wrong word, but it is more difficult for local authorities to collect that tax. Is the assumed figure—94 per cent.—more or less.

Mr. Hunt: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, as I have the latest figures, which show that community charge collection in Wales is going well. Returns up to and including the third quarter of 1991–92 show that a total of 70 per cent. of the budgeted income for the year had been collected by 31 December. That includes four authorities that have collected 85 per cent. or more of their budgeted income—Dinefwr, Preseli, Ogwr and Brecknock. I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) appreciates that that is the quickest response that he has received to any question that he has asked in the House. Authorities expect to collect 100 per cent. of the budgeted total for 1990–91, and they are on course to achieve the same level of collection in 1991–92.
The hon. Gentleman asked for the exact figures for the full amount as against the budgeted amount. The latest figures for the end of the third quarter of 1991–to 31 December 1991—show that 69·8 per cent. of the budgeted amount and 65·5 per cent. of the full amount has been collected. That is a remarkably good record when compared with anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will get a chance to make his own contribution.
I wish to pay tribute to staff, councillors and everyone working in local authorities in Wales who have achieved such a remarkably good result.
Some Members opposite have been telling people not to pay the community charge—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?") I


cannot see any in the Chamber. There are no such Members in the Chamber, but there have been Members on Opposition Benches—

Mr. Ray Powell: The Secretary of State said "opposite".

Mr. Hunt: I said that there had been Members on Opposition Benches — I chose my words carefully— who have advocated the non-payment of poll tax or community charge. I can identify more than 30 Labour Members who told the people of the United Kingdom not to pay their poll tax or community charge.
I wish to say a few words about non-payment. There will be no amnesty for non-payers. We are taking further steps to ensure that authorities have the necessary powers for the proper enforcement of the community charge. We have extended from two to six years the period during which enforcement proceedings may be commenced. We are moving to put beyond doubt the admissibility of computer evidence in proceedings for community charge recovery in magistrates courts. My Department has written to local authorities about how to proceed in the short period before the Local Government Finance Bill is enacted.
We believe there is no obstacle to authorities continuing to apply for liability orders where they consider that their procedures for the presentation of cases meet the requirements of existing law. I understand that authorities are continuing to apply and that more than 6,000 liability orders were made by Welsh magistrates in the last two weeks of January.
The settlement before the House today is a good one for local government and charge payers alike.

Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: I shall not give way yet as I wish to address the point on capping raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
As the House knows, I have not announced charge capping criteria for 1992–93, but I will scrutinise carefully the budget of any authority which exceeds its SSA. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to use my charge-capping powers. In recent years, Welsh authorities have, on the whole, performed better than their English counterparts in setting prudent budgets. They have benefited from more generous settlements than their English counterparts in recognition of this, and it has not been necessary to charge cap a single Welsh local authority. That is a record which I want to continue, but I have become increasingly concerned during the past few days and weeks by reports I have seen in newspapers, which I hope are untrue, which suggest that a number of authorities are considering setting budgets that would place an unacceptable burden on charge payers. Those authorities should be in no doubt that I shall use my charge-capping powers if I consider it necessary. In view of those reports, I have today asked my officials to set up a special unit in the Welsh Office to make the necessary arrangements for capping. I hope any authorities that are contemplating diverging from my plans in setting budgets will think again and that I will not have to activate the capping procedures now in hand.

Dr. Kim Howells: It sounds as though the Secretary of State is setting up a special investigative division. I hope

that it will have a better effect on Wales than did the introduction of the poll tax. Local authorities are not abstract notions—their members are elected by respectable, good people in Welsh communities who, through no fault of their own and because they cannot afford to pay the poll tax, have been dragged before the courts and criminalised. They are people who have never previously been in court. The Government are responsible for that and for bringing untold heartache and hardship to households. They should be thoroughly ashamed of that.

Mr. Hunt: I am not ashamed of that. We are talking about civil offences; it is wrong for people to seek to benefit from services while not paying for them. There is no question of people not being able to afford the poll tax or community charge, as the amount provided through the income support system more than covers the 20 per cent. they have to pay, due to the low community charge in Wales.
I believe that the settlement for 1992–93 provides Welsh local authorities with a realistic framework within which to maintain and develop service provision. 1 hope that they will respond to that challenge and will act in a responsible manner and not undo their past achievements. I commend the settlement to the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: How obviously Her Majesty's Government have sought to shunt this debate into the small hours. They tried to do so twice and, after nearly three weeks, we are now able to have a debate at a reasonable hour. We know that the Government have sought to hide this debate because they know that the poll tax is most unpopular in Wales. Tonight, the Secretary of State has presented the orders, revised, at only the last minute. That does not increase our confidence in the Government.
The poll tax continues under the Conservatives. They rejected Labour's offer of a poll tax abolition Bill. If our offer had been taken up last summer, another round of poll tax chaos would have been averted. Now, poll tax panic is once again breaking out in the Conservative ranks. The Government will have to fight the general election campaign against a background of renewed controversy over the cost, fairness and practicality of the poll tax. Whether the general election is on 9 April or 7 May, the Conservatives face the spectre of the electorate in Wales picking up their poll tax bills in one hand and Conservative election leaflets in the other.
The Government, who have already wasted more than £100 million on the poll tax in Wales, may yet add confusion to chaos. Will the Secretary of State now rule out any political gerrymandering to delay poll tax bills going out in Wales until after the general election?
The poll tax nightmare continues. Council treasurers are having to try to administer the discredited poll tax which even the Prime Minister described as uncollectable. They also have to collect growing poll tax debts and adjust their budgets to meet standard spending assessments under the threat of poll tax capping. The chaos, confusion and uncertainty among treasurers increase by the day.
Our councils in Wales are being asked to engage in the biggest debt collection exercise in the history of Wales. More than 400,000 summonses for poll tax arrears have been issued by magistrates courts in Wales. Even some of


the poorest people in Wales still have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax. Ministers are threatening poll tax capping and, by implication, more cuts in local services.
This wretched record is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and soon he will have to face the electorate and account for his actions. Conservative Members representing Welsh constituencies—fairly thin on the ground they are too—do not support the right hon. Gentleman's views on the poll tax. They do not believe that it should be inflicted on the people of Wales, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. But the blame for the chaos lies with him.
The Secretary of State's central role in introducing the poll tax in England and Wales is well known. It is worth reminding the House once again of some of the gems of political wit, insight and intelligence uttered by the right hon. Gentleman in the past. He told the Conservative party conference in 1989:
The fact is that, whatever Labour claim or do, the community charge is on course for successful introduction throughout England and Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman recently said:
I welcome the community charge system to which I was committed at the last election and to which I remain committed as a much fairer and better system.
So why should we believe anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said tonight? Why should we ever believe him again?

Mr. David Hunt: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman will put it to the electorate at the next election that we should return to the rating system. When he was Under-Secretary of State for Wales —

Mr. Rowlands: That is going back a bit.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is going back a bit too. He said then:
I will go further and call attention to the many anomalies inherent in the rating system.
The hon. Gentleman was against the rating system then, so why is he so much in favour of going back to it now?

Mr. Jones: That was a frivolous intervention, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
The Under-Secretary has been no shrinking violet on the poll tax either. The people of Pembroke, reeling under the hon. Gentleman's indifference to the workers of Trecwn and Brawdy, will, I am sure, remember that he said in this House quite recently:
The community charge is a fair tax and a reasonable charge to make on people, so we should support it."—[Official Report, 23 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 911.]
Why should the people of Pembroke ever believe him again? We think that this is another nail in his parliamentary coffin.

Mr. Anderson: In the light of that crushing indictment of these two Ministers' record on the poll tax, does my hon. Friend agree that the least the people of Wales can expect from them is some contrition?

Mr. Jones: I am quite prepared to give way to either of them if he wants to apologise for the poll tax. Clearly, there is no contrition tonight.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was unconvincing on teachers' pay, particularly when answering questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member

for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I understand that the total cost of the teachers' award in Wales will be £49 million. Welsh Office Ministers have claimed that the extra £3·5 million will help to cover the cost of the award, but the counties are left to find the balance of ;£45·5 million, on top—Ministers did not make this clear—of the built-in additional costs in 1992–93 of funding the 1991 teachers' award, which will cost an extra £14 million—because the 1991 award was phased in and part of it became effective only from December 1991. So the total extra cost to be found by the counties for teachers' pay in the coming year is £63 million, made up of 7·8 per cent. from the 1992 award, and an extra 2·8 per cent. from 1991.
The Secretary of State did not refer to the difficulties that the award will create. Whatever the merits of the teachers' award—we know that the teachers need the money—it is clear that the Government expect the counties of Wales to find ways of meeting exceptional increased costs within a settlement that we know is inadequate for local services as a whole—there is certainly a large hole in the settlement in respect of teachers' pay. On top of all that we have to contend with the right hon. Gentleman's bully-boy tactics of threatening capping.
The blame for next year's bills also lies with the right hon. Gentleman. The local authority associations in Wales consistently advised him that the settlement could be improved. Our spending needs continue to increase. The settlement is inadequate to meet the extra costs flowing from increasing statutory responsibilities. The counties face increasing costs related to the implementation of Government legislation on the national curriculum, on pupil assessment, on community care, and of the Children Act 1989, to say nothing of funding the teachers' pay award.
For districts, the costs of implementing environmental protection legislation and waste disposal legislation are considerable. The right hon. Gentleman did not make his case when discussing the difficulties faced by local authorities.
The Government have no excuses left for the 20 per cent. poll tax contribution rule—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No, not now.
The 20 per cent. rule has been condemned by every independent and professional body. It is to be removed under the council tax, yet the Government insist on keeping it while the poll tax remains. The rule is a disaster and a disgrace, and it is making the poll tax even more difficult to collect. It punishes the poor and it has created debt and hardship. In his passionate intervention earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) spoke the truth.
These orders relate to housing and the Government have created a housing crisis. With over 70,000 people on waiting lists in Wales, homelessness at record levels and mortgage repossessions soaring, it is time for action by the Government, but they have cut the supply of affordable homes to rent. Capital allocations mean that few, if any, council houses will be built next year. In 1975, under the Labour Government, there were 8,294 council house


starts. In 1990, the figure was down to just 350. Little wonder that homelessness has doubled in Wales since 1979.
These orders also refer to the attempts by local authorities to generate employment, something that they do very well in Wales. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity finally to come out in support of RECHAR and additionality, which is of such great importance to the south Wales coalfield? It is about time that he chose between party and country and I ask him to stand up and fight for Wales.
This issue threatens to spread beyond the £18 million for the south Wales coalfield. Lack of progress on the additionality issue could threaten European grants and aid worth £18 million to Wales. The blame lies clearly with Her Majesty's Government. This dispute could not be happening at a worse time. Unemployment in Wales increased by 35 per cent. in the last 12 months, yet the Government are blocking millions of pounds for positive local authority initiatives to strengthen the economy, create employment and improve skills. In south Wales alone, not only RECHAR money worth £18 million but over £40 million in regional development funds are at risk. The projects at risk include phase 3 of Cardiff (Wales) Airport business park, the Tawe valley development project in west Glamorgan, the Crumlin navigation regeneration project in Gwent and the valleys innovation centre at Abercynon in Mid-Glamorgan.
This is the record that I honestly believe will put Welsh Ministers at risk when the general election comes. The record of Her Majesty's Government is poor and I was not surprised to see recently an article about the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), the Under-Secretary. The West Wales Guardian published an article on its front page headed, "Nick's Seat At Risk". It said:
Although … the major parties are running neck and neck nationally the regional patterns are not uniform and the swing in Wales forecasts that the Pembroke seat held by Welsh Office Minister Mr. Nicholas Bennett is marginal and will fall to Labour.
This detailed analysis comes not from an impartial newspaper, but from one that favours the Conservatives. I am surprised to see that it is prepared to print the truth and predict that the excellent Labour candidate, Nick Ainger, will win the seat by 2,400 votes.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. Jones: I can see that this is enraging the Under-Secretary, but I warn him that though he may come to the Box, he does so at his own peril.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On the day that that report was published, the Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph—the one on which that newspaper relies—showed a 4·5 per cent. Conservative lead, which gives me a majority of 3,000.

Mr. Jones: If that is so, why does the West Wales Guardian refer to the Gallup poll?
I listened in vain for the Secretary of State's apology to the people of Wales for brazenly and blithely inflicting on them an unjust, unpopular and wasteful poll tax, although there was no support in Wales for it. It took a right hon. Gentleman representing the English constituency in Wirral to do that, and he is identified closely with it. The blame for the poll tax lies with the Conservative Government. The Conservatives know it and the people of

Wales know it. We know that Conservatives have undermined local government. They have eroded local services and wasted millions of pounds. Time is up for the Government. It is time for a fresh start. It is time for a Labour Government.

Sir. Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) can be sure that an anthology of his wit and wisdom is being lovingly compiled and will be extensively used during the next general election, although it would be more effective to play back some of his speeches. I am thinking not of the relatively sotto voce speech that he made tonight, but of the speech that he made a little while ago in the Welsh Grand Committee, which I shall treasure for a long time.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a fair and generous settlement. I remind him of what has been said about the Prime Minister—that he endeared himself to the previous Prime Minister because, she said, he said no so charmingly. My right hon. Friend says yes so charmingly that even his threepenny bits look like gold sovereigns. I am particularly pleased that, as a result of this and previous settlements, the adventure playground in Rhyl, which has such an important part to play in raising the morale of that rather depressed end of the town, will go ahead.
Members of Parliament, by definition, are never satisfied. We always want more, and I have to record my intense unhappiness that Clwyd county council has for so very long delayed action on Ruthin bypass. Now, in the restriction in the transport supplementary grant, it has been able to find a pretext further to delay the starting of that essential scheme. There are always schemes that we want. I am thinking in particular of the arts centre at Llandudno, on which I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has worked so tirelessly behind the scenes. Local government looks to central Government for support for such projects.
I have a pet scheme of my own—the pier at Colwyn bay, one of the few remaining piers in north Wales, which will shortly fall into the sea unless something is done about it. I was delighted when, the other day, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside visited it and promised that a Labour Government would find the money to put it right. On this, as on everything else, the hon. Gentleman goes around pledging the moon. The trouble is that the moon has already been pledged, latterly in the shape of revenue support grants. These have been generous, because they had to bring the poll tax down to the low level at which it stands in Wales. Welsh Members are particularly pleased that we have managed to drive English Members of Parliament out of the Chamber, because that means that they will not know what a wonderful deal we are getting.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am English.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am blind in my left eye.
I agree with the fears of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about what all this is doing for local autonomy. As my right hon. Friend said, 93 per cent. of all the moneys spent by local authorities no longer comes


from any source for which they are responsible for voting. On top of that, there is the threat of community charge capping.
What does all that mean for local autonomy? I do not think that the public care much. For example, they support the transfer to central funding of the police and fire services. They are pleased to see that higher education is now the Government's responsibility. I think that the majority would like to see responsibility for teachers' pay transferred to the Government. Many would like to see education so transferred. They support, and I support, the concept of ring fencing for certain items of local government expenditure. My good friend the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) is not present, but he and I both feel strongly that, if the interests of the more vulnerable sections of our community are to be protected, it may well be necessary to consider ring-fencing the moneys allocated for community care. All that is fine, but where is it leading us?
I recently attended a local government conference in Rouen in France, when I asked my French neighbour how much of the money that his local authority was spending was raised by taxes which were locally decided and voted. He said that it was between 80 and 85 per cent. That is in France, which it is the conventional wisdom among all of us to consider to be a highly centralised country.

Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems in Wales—it may well be true in the rest of Britain—is the great disparity between levels of living standards and incomes? Areas in close proximity may have vastly different per capita and net household incomes. Therefore, with relatively small local authorities, there is a need, at the very least, for significant equalisation if levels of services are to be common throughout those areas. Perhaps that difference does not exist quite so much in areas of continental Europe.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The disparity can be every bit as great in France. One travels around spanking new towns and sees slummy bidonvilles on the outskirts with exactly the same problems, which are often more widespread and acute than ours. France has no fewer than five levels of government which it seems to put up with. I am not recommending that we should.
I wonder what on earth is happening. There was a steady move towards reducing the contribution made by the Government to local government, and by 1985–86 it was some 47 per cent. That has now risen to 93 per cent. That is almost entirely the consequence of the unacceptability of the poll tax and the need to sugar the pill, but the effect on local autonomy has been catastrophic. I should like to think that that effect was completely unintended, but I must take into account the destruction of all the countervailing centres of authority. I rejoice in the diminution of the power of the trade unions to challenge elected Governments. However, I observe with less rejoicing the attempts to restrict the activities of some voluntary bodies to stop them entering upon political activity.
All that is splendid, but we are going towards a highly centralised system of government. If ever that system were to fall into the hands of a party holding extreme views, we

would be in a terrible plight. I am not sure whether that is not the most lingering legacy of the Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher); a more lingering legacy even than what I currently consider to be her greatest achievement, which is the modernisation of the Labour party. There are moments when one feels that the only effective check on the powers of central government is the power of the multinationals, plus the influence and power still exerted by the EC.
Against that rather unpromising background, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to reorganise local government. He will not make the same mistake as his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), of separating the reform of local government from the reform of local government finance. Basically, that is the mistake that Gorbachev made when he tried to carry out political reform without economic reform.
That is why devolution in Wales deserved to fail last time. It was a scheme to set up an elected assembly which would have had the pleasant task of distributing money but none of the responsibility for raising it. Any viable scheme for devolution must include an assembly with revenue-raising powers. I notice that many of those who advocate devolution fall quiet when one talks about that aspect, but it should be faced. However we do it, it will be diabolically difficult to get back to genuine local autonomy.
What locally elected councillor will cheerfully vote for steeply increased locally raised taxes? I just do not know the mechanism whereby we can return to genuinely independent local authorities. If I knew the answer to that, I would be even more of a wizard than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. All I know is that the Opposition do not even have the courage to pose the question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It might be helpful to inform hon. Members that, if they were to speak for less than 10 minutes each, it might be possible to call all those who wish to speak. As usual, the debate is in the hands of the House.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I shall try hard, Madam Deputy Speaker, to obey your plea by dealing briefly with the one bit of the settlement that I understand. One good reason for not becoming Secretary of State for Wales is that one avoids becoming embroiled in the gobbledegook of the rate support grant with its formula S - N - (P x C), where C is the community charge for capital spending, quite apart from the total standard spending and the rest. There is a strong case for avoiding that.
But there is one part of the system that I have tried to understand and have watched closely, and that is the community charge or poll tax reduction scheme. We were told that, starting in 1991, a sum of money would be specifically directed to reducing poll tax payments in certain districts. It was not even a borough or district-wide scheme. In Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, it was applied at ward level. We reached the absurdity where one side of the street in one ward benefited from the scheme, while the


other side in another ward did not. However, at least one understood it. Money was being specifically allocated to reduce the poll tax to certain householders in the community according to a variety of formulae.
But a couple of months ago in the House the Secretary of State made a statement on the revenue support grant for 1992–93. We all listened and nodded wisely. On the community charge reduction scheme, he said that he intended to make £40 million available in 1992–93. He went on to say that that would provide substantial assistance to charge payers who most needed relief, and that it was double the amount that was made available to charge payers in 1990–91. Any hon. Member listening as well as he could, given the acoustics of the House, would have thought that that was a generous settlement. He would have understood that the Secretary of State was doubling the poll tax reduction scheme from £20 million to £40 million.
I am not given to personal hyperbole, but that statement was pretty close to being dishonest. What was missing was the figure for 1991–92. Instead of saying that the figure was only being doubled from £20 million to £40 million, the Secretary of State said that in 1991–92 it would be £60 million. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman was announcing a £20 million cut in the poll tax reduction scheme. Would anyone hearing that statement in the House or reading it understand that there was to be a £20 million reduction? The Secretary of State did not have the honesty or courage to explain the impact and consequence of the settlement.

Mr. David Hunt: Perhaps I may correct the hon. Gentleman. This year, the figure is not £60 million but £62 million. That is a matter of public record. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when I announced the community charge reduction scheme, the estimated community charge was £140 higher than it turned out to be. Also, the local authorities that originally proposed the scheme had expressed doubts because they said that the level of money going into it was producing serious anomalies. I therefore rethought the scheme, believing that the last year of the community charge would be the wrong time to make a fundamental change.

Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State cannot get away with that. If that is the explanation, why did not his statement include something to that effect? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say, "As a result of discussions, I have reduced the value of the scheme from £62 million to £40 million. I have kept £22 million." Instead, the Secretary of State disingenuously told the House, "I have doubled the 1990–91 figure." That is why we do not trust much of what is said about that settlement.
The scheme was directly related to the individual poll tax payer. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what that £22 million cut means in my constituency, ward by ward.

Mr. Hunt: The figure was not £22 million.

Mr. Rowlands: Of course it was. As the right hon. Gentleman has misled the House once, let him listen to the figures.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not imagine that the hon. Member meant what he just said. Perhaps he will reflect on that remark, and rephrase it.

Mr. Rowlands: I always thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, that "misled" was a legitimate parliamentary term.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know what I am talking about.

Mr. Rowlands: I am suitably chastened, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of course I withdraw that remark. However, I hope that I may apply the posh word "disingenuous" to the Secretary of State's statement to the House that he was doubling the amount available for poll tax reduction, when in fact he was cutting it by £22 million in respect of Welsh poll tax payers.

Mr. Barry Jones: My hon. Friend makes a devastating set of remarks about the Secretary of State's technique. I remind my hon. Friend of an exchange during Question Time, when the Secretary of State told the House that 100 per cent. of the poll tax was being collected. It took an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) to persuade the Secretary of State to correct himself, and say that he meant that 100 per cent. of expected poll tax collection—94 per cent. of that payable— was being collected.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend emphasises my point. I will tell the Secretary of State the consequences of his £22 million cut in the poll tax reduction scheme for Welsh communities and wards such as those that I represent. In Bedlinog, the increase in the poll tax will be 40 per cent., before one additional penny is spent on extra salaries, services, or inflation; in Dowlais, 36 per cent.; in Merthyr Vale, 47 per cent.; in Pant, 23 per cent.; in Park, 22 per cent.; in Troedyrhiw, 49 per cent.
That will be the effect on communities that are considered to be in deprived areas and deserving of extra support of the cut in the poll tax reduction scheme. Nothing in the Secretary of State's original statement or in his remarks tonight brought it home to people that that would be the true consequence of his decision.
I hope that, if nothing else, we shall be able to print at the bottom of every poll tax demand issued in those wards the fact that the extra £17 that everyone must pay is the surcharge placed by the Secretary of State on those communities.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away, the House ought to be aware that, in Dowlais, for example, the amount of relief per charge payer in the coming year will be £41.

Mr. Rowlands: But the actual amount payable will increase by 36 per cent. The Secretary of State did not make any announcement to that effect when he made his original statement or at the Dispatch Box earlier today. We should not be kidded in that way. The people of Wales and the people of my communities will not be kidded. This is a Hunt surcharge on poll tax payers in communities that, only a year or two ago, were said by the Secretary of State to be the poorest and most deprived.
It is hard for anyone to come to terms with absolute statements of the kind made by the Secretary about increases in expenditure when responsible and respected borough and district treasurers, who are not known to suffer from hallucinations, tell us that, if environmental improvements, such as in waste disposal, are to be made, if they are to take up the generous allocation for home


improvement grants, increase staffing, pay higher loan interest charges or even pursue policies mutually agreed between the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State and Labour-controlled county and district councils, the effect will be to increase the burden of revenue expenditure and to push those authorities to the level of potential capping.
Borough treasurers write to my right hon. and hon. Friends, as they do to Conservative Members, pointing out the consequences of increased expenditure resulting from legislation passed by the House, and introduced in the pre-election run-up by a Secretary of State who seeks sometimes to humiliate local authorities into taking action under the so-called citizens charter. We are entitled to say that the responsibility should lie with those who made those decisions. When it comes to the introduction, the implementation, and, even in the poll tax's death throes, the cut in the reduction scheme, the Secretary of State is the person responsible for the burden we face.

Mr. Ian Grist: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is not in his place, because I was infuriated by his claim that the poorest of his and my constituents, and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, are suffering under the community charge. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they receive income support and that the element of income support calculated for community charge is based on the average charge for England and Wales—which is far higher than 20 per cent. of any community charge imposed in Wales.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside knows also that Welsh community charges are extremely low by any standard. Even Cardiff, and South Glamorgan this year, will be making a charge of less than £3 a week per head. That is a jolly good bargain for the services that are provided locally. Some of my constituents will be charged £1·60 per week after diminution, which is remarkable value.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) made the point that if local authorities and local government are to mean anything, they will have to raise more money locally. I wonder how people will squeal and scream at the charges and taxes that will be levied on them. If devolution were ever to come, would we ever have an assembly funded more than 90 per cent. by the British Parliament? You can bet your bottom dollar that would not happen, because the House would have no power over such an assembly, and would not be able to control its expenditure. It would, therefore, be a minimal amount which came from this place, with the maximum being raised in Wales by a Welsh assembly. Anyone who wants a Welsh assembly had better look out for the reaction of people in Wales to such a demand when they realise what will happen.
Having served in the Welsh Office during the period of the community charge and being responsible for housing and other matters, I want to pay tribute to the local authorities in Wales and to say how fortunate we are in being a small country where Ministers can get to know the councillors in charge, the chairmen of committees, the treasurers and so on, and where we can sit round a table, know each other personally and thrash these things out.

That is how standard spending assessments are worked out, in agreement with each other—a point somewhat overlooked after the announcement, when people strike attitudes. It is noticeable, however, that with this particular set of settlements attitudes are pretty wishy-washy. It is a very good and reasonable set of settlements. The amount that councils have been given is well ahead of inflation at a time when the economy is stuck. I should have thought that on any basis that is a very favourable settlement.
The discipline brought by the community charge, together with the threat of charge capping, which has never had to be used in Wales, has encouraged councillors to increase efficiency and make every pound pay. If the Labour party got in and were to change the system yet again, and if they were to do away with the Audit Commission, which is part of their policy, we would be off again on the giddy roundabout.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside mentioned council house building in the splendid year of 1975, when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was going round telling councils to "spend, spend, spend". My word, they did, and 15 months later we were international paupers because we were bust. All hon. Members know just how their councils ground to a halt. A major estate in my constituency at Llanedeyrn came to a grinding halt with no shops, no facilities, nothing—houses not finished and roads uncompleted. Everything resulted from the crazy expenditure of money at that time. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney knows that very well.

Mr. Rowlands: Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) remembers, as I do vividly, that what we had to do in 1974–75 was pick up half-built private housing estates that had gone bust during the last private Tory housing boom.

Mr. Grist: I remember one estate in my area which the council "municipalised". As soon as we came to power in 1979 it was the fastest place for everyone to purchase his own house. I remember a party-political film unit coming to the constituency. I was asked where it could go to see people who wanted to buy their own houses, and I directed them to that estate, Ty Cerrig. They would have bought them from the word go. The municipalisation was unnecessary. It shows the sort of Government that we had then, which got away with municipalising, nationalising and spending. That is what we would have again. We have had a plethora of promises to free local government, which means spending more and more on housing, roads, education, all things which are highly desirable and all things on which we have been spending more money steadily and carefully; but under the promises of the Labour party we would have a burst of expenditure once again and we would be back to 1975, apparently the chosen year for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside to remember.
I would like to mention a purely constituency matter, although it has reference to what other hon. Members have said, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), with his medicentre and the row with South Glamorgan and the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, and that is South Glamorgan's behaviour over Corpus Christi school in my constituency.


I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North for having brought this matter up several times in the past.
Corpus Christi is a Roman Catholic school, the premises of which had been found to be unsafe. It is in a highly residential area and is long established. The area has been built up round the school so the roads which surround it have taken into account the layout of the school as regards traffic reactions and so forth. The authorities decided not to rebuild on site, although it is a big site and they could have done so perfectly well. They decided to move to a new green field site and sell the existing school. Because the proposal broke the local structure plan, the archdiocese and the county applied to the city council for permission to develop houses and to raise the money.
The city council refused to give them permission. The county therefore purchased the 15 per cent. owned by the archdiocese and granted itself planning permission on the site. That is an abuse of power which we considered in 1990 and put out to consultation. I believe that we are going to put out some rulings on it shortly. but, unfortunately, perhaps not in time to catch that particular abuse.
The site, with more than 100 houses, will debouch on to a small set of estate roads where, I am told, the traffic will be less than from the school. I find that unbelievable. Once cars are parked down one side of these roads, two-way traffic becomes difficult because one must dodge round the vehicles, so perhaps we shall have parking restrictions and all the rest of it clamped on the estate to accommodate the extra traffic which will flow out of these 100-plus executive houses.
The school itself is planned to go out of my constituency to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, on a green field site on the edge of the city to which coaches will have to take all the pupils. It is a site for which a private Catholic school applied two years ago and was turned down, but the county has purchased the land for £1 million or £2 million—I forget which—and is prepared to grant itself planning permission yet again and to get Welsh Office funding to do so unless Welsh Water puts such a charge on the site that it becomes impossible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ought to think again, call in the proposal and consider the widespread unease and dismay at the activities of the county council in abusing its power. If county councils and other authorities abuse their power in this sort of way they lose a great deal of public sympathy which otherwise they thoroughly deserve.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The altercation that I had with the Secretary of State about finance in Powys is causing serious concern within the county, and I hope that there will be an early opportunity for the chief executive and representatives of that council to meet the Secretary of State to discuss the matter. The standard spending assessments hardly cover inflation, especially when it comes to current teachers' salaries.
There will be further expenditure which local authorities will have to incur because of recent legislation.

The Children Act 1989, in particular, places responsibilities on local authorities necessitating more resources. The same is true of community care and other recent legislation.
In the settlements recently announced by the Secretary of State there are winners and losers. I thank him for a good settlement in Radnorshire. Unfortunately, his Department has blotted its copy book with Radnorshire in the past couple of days, something that I shall refer to later.
The Secretary of State has been a little miserly in the settlement for Powys. Powys is setting a community charge of £100 which is spot on what the Secretary of State proposes. It has tried its best to work within his guidelines. The inevitable result, given the threat of capping, of some current settlements that authorities have achieved will be a cut in services in the coming financial year. In the districts there is a very sad story, with the failure to release funds from council house sales which has failed to fund the necessary housing to rent and will certainly fail to solve the housing crisis and resulting homelessness. As has already been mentioned, just over 70,000 people in Wales are on housing waiting lists. That is a serious and human problem, which confronts families every day.
The Secretary of State has engaged in a discussion—almost a debate—with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about the level of community charge collection. In previous years, the collection rate in my part of the world has reached 97 per cent., which is higher than the average of around 94 per cent. to which the Secretary of State referred. Local authorities in the area have been very responsible, although, like some hon. Members, they do not agree with the principles of the community charge.
The Government's distribution of cash to local authorities is very much a lottery. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) pointed out, the system is complex and difficult to understand. It needs to be simplified, because the formulae involved create distortions.
As I have said, we in Powys are very dissatisfied with our standard spending assessment. In an earlier intervention, I made a slight slip. I said that the revised assessment was 6·3 per cent., against a Welsh average of 8·2 per cent.—about 2 per cent. behind. Every time the Welsh Office revised the figures over the months between December and the present time, slightly less was allowed for in Powys. I do not mean that as a deliberate slight on the Secretary of State and his staff, but the fact remains that the regression analysis used to calculate the figures appeared to give Powys a smaller reward over those months.
That needs some examination. The knock-on effect has meant a cut of £600,000 in Powys's education budget, and many schools in the local management of schools scheme are having to cut their budgets. In recent weeks, I have come across many village primary schools whose LMS budgets face cuts of between £12,000 and £20,000—and that, of course, means cuts in essential services.
It is an enormous problem and it is compounded to some extent by the teachers' pay settlement. It all depends on how the counties have made their calculations for the coming year. We in Powys welcome the 7·5 per cent. settlement: teachers deserve a good settlement. It could have been better, but at least they have reaped some reward—although I suspect that it constitutes something


of a sweetener. We have seen the same kind of sweetener in many parts of the public sector; we are, after all, within weeks of a general election.
Although it is welcome, that 7·5 per cent. settlement does not cover the requirements of teachers' pay throughout 1992. The local authority must find a further 2·3 per cent. from the previous year. My authority's full-year costs for 1991–92 represent an additional I per cent., and it faces a total 9·8 per cent. increase in teachers' salary costs. That shortfall must be met from the SSA settlement of 6·1 per cent.
We must take account of the precepts on county budgets. The Dyfed-Powys police authority, for example, has a precept of 11 per cent. in the coming financial year. That is way above the inflation level, but the county must find resources to assist the police authority. The land drainage precept has been increased by 10 per cent.—again, way above inflation. That puts the county budget in a difficult position. Then there are capital financing charges of 8·7 per cent. That must be added to the cost of extra pupil numbers in schools, and the implementation of the Children Act 1989. The additional demands on the county budget must be met; something has to give.
The district councils are also experiencing variable results. Until the announcement by the Welsh Office on 11 February, we thought that the Radnorshire settlement announced on 20 January was fair. Somewhere along the line, however, Radnorshire lost £90,000 between the two dates. That is causing considerable problems for the Radnorshire treasurer, because many details of the budget had already been worked out. I know that the Secretary of State will be receiving representations from the district. In local authority finance terms, £90,000 may not sound much, but—as the Secretary of State well knows—Radnorshire is a relatively small authority.

Mr. David Hunt: Late last night, Mr. Jonathan Evans telephoned me to say that there was some concern in Powys. I agreed with him, as I agree with the hon. Gentleman now, and I am very willing to speak to council officers if that is required.
The recalculation of Radnorshire's SSA to take account of teachers' pay meant that, for reasons of consistency, other changes that had arisen after the original calculations had been undertaken needed to be taken into account. They included the surrender of supplementary credit approvals totalling £600,000, because of the decision not to proceed with the Llandridnod Wells leisure centre. The approvals have been recycled for use by other districts and the loan charges element of Radnorshire's SSA has been reduced as a result.
Radnorshire still has a higher percentage increase in SSA than any other district—19·1 per cent., compared with an average of 8·7 per cent. Its SSA has increased by over 43 per cent. since 1991.

Mr. Livsey: I thank the Secretary of State for going into such detail. Those developments, however, result from changes in teachers' pay—which, after all, is a county rather than a district function. I know that there is a spin-off.

Mr. Hunt: I was merely saying that, irrespective of the county function, the fact that the figures were being recalculated because of the need to take the county's

figures into account meant that the district's figures were brought up to date. Of course, Radnorshire's figures have nothing to do with the teachers' pay calculations.

Mr. Livsey: Nonetheless, quite a stir has been created in the district, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will receive representations from it, too. I hope that he will take more notice of the statements that I am making than of quotations that he appears to have received from my Conservative opponent in the constituency. He has a tendency to listen more readily to Conservative candidates throughout Wales than to Welsh Members of Parliament. That is a very unacceptable state of affairs, which has been repeated time and again.
On the other hand, I am very grateful indeed to the Secretary of State for agreeing to meet a deputation from Powys. I know that they welcome that opportunity. 1 hope that by thanking the Secretary of State for it I shall make it clear that I want to be even-handed.
There is a very sad state of affairs in housing. The current extent of homelessness is entirely unacceptable. I spent part of last Saturday evening trying to assist a parent and four children to get a roof over their heads for the night. The family ended up in a police station looking for help. I am sure that that experience is shared by many Members of Parliament. We are having to pick up the pieces of a failed housing policy. It is immoral that people should be thrown on to the streets because affordable housing is unavailable as a result of the failure to build council houses in the last five years. The Government are refusing to release funds—the councils' own funds—for this purpose. In respect of housing, as in respect of the poll tax, the Government have failed. The poll tax is one of the worst reforms to have been introduced this century. It does not address the question of ability to pay, and we are now talking about a local government settlement that involves picking up the pieces.

9 pm

Mr. Keith Raffan: Before coming to my main remarks I should like to express strong support for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) about the Rhuddlan bypass, which is important not only to the town of Rhyl in his constituency but to the town of Prestatyn in my own. Both towns depend heavily on the tourist industry, and it is important that access to them is easy. The bypass will improve access, so it is important that work be started as soon as possible. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these remarks in mind. We understand from Clwyd county council that the reason for the postponement is connected with the transport supplementary grant.
I want to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out in his opening remarks, the level of central Government support for local authority revenue expenditure in 1991–92 shows an increase from 79 per cent. to nearly 93 per cent. I do not regard this as a healthy development, even though it is probably temporary. We are rapidly approaching the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson): that all local authority revenue should be raised centrally, that we should abandon any attempt whatsoever to replace the rates whether by the poll tax, or the council tax—or whatever else is proposed. I do not go along with that, although I have reservations about the council tax, to


which I shall come in a moment. We are rapidly approaching a situation in which central Government provide nearly all the finance for local authorities. That is not healthy. I believe in strong, representative local government. If we are to have that, councils must have a right to raise revenue to a much greater extent than is the case now or is likely to be the case with the council tax.
Before elaborating on those remarks I should like to comment briefly on one or two aspects of the community charge in its dying days. The average cost of collecting the minimum contribution of 20 per cent. of poll tax from those on social security benefit is £6 more per head than the amount raised. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is not usually like this. I am actually supporting him, but he is ignoring my support. It is important that we realise how expensive it is to collect the poll tax from people on benefit. It is absurd that the cost should be £6 more per head than the amount collected. The whole 20 per cent. is covered by the uprating of income support. In fact, people in Wales who are on benefit do well. They receive an uprating of 20 per cent. of the average community charge throughout England and Wales. Surely the sensible thing for the Government to do would have been to reduce the income support by 20 per cent. rather than waste money in attempts at collection. Surely it would be fairly easy to do this and cheaper than collection of the 20 per cent.
The case for abolition of the minimum calculation is overwhelming—[Interruption.] I want to get on. As I am agreeing with points that have been made by the Opposition, I do not understand how contention can arise. This is an unnecessary distraction for councils at a time when the transfer to the council tax is having to be made.
The second point relates to the community charge reduction scheme. My right hon. Friend knows that I have always been unhappy about the fact that we have a different community charge reduction scheme in Wales from that in England. The English system is much fairer and much better targeted. It is targeted towards individuals rather than towards whole community council areas. When my right hon. Friend made his statement on 13 January, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said that, if my right hon. Friend's predecessor had listened to local government leaders in Wales, he would not have produced such an "inane" scheme.
When I tackled my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) on the issue when he was Secretary of State for Wales he said that he had listened to local government leaders in Wales and that they had come out in favour of a community charge reduction scheme that was oriented towards community council areas rather than towards individuals, the argument being that that would cost a lot less to administer and therefore there would be more money to spread around.
This scheme has created absurd anomalies. To illustrate my point, let me take the example of Rhyl and Prestatyn. The west end of Rhyl is a very deprived area. In 1991–92, Rhyl poll tax payers had a reduction of £48, whereas the poll tax payers of Prestatyn—many of them in similar housing, and in some cases in less good housing—had a reduction of £1. In the next financial year, 1992–93, the reduction in Rhyl will be £31 and in Prestatyn zero. The whole thing is cockeyed. It is as unfair and inequitable as the rates. It would have been much more sensible and

much fairer for us to have adopted the English system that is oriented towards individuals rather than towards community council areas.

Mr. David Hunt: I thought very carefully about this, as my hon. Friend knows, and considered what he has just said, but I felt that in the final year of the community charge or poll tax it would have been wrong to ask everybody in Wales to complete an application form for community charge relief. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.

Mr. Raffan: Yes, but rather than giving blanket assistance to all people in a community council area, it would have been far better in the first place to direct it towards those individuals who have suffered particularly badly.
My right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench regard the council tax as a safe haven from the poll tax. They believe that the storms will abate and that we shall sail into smoother waters. The Opposition look smug, but how many versions of a replacement for the poll tax have they produced? Is it 63, at the latest count, or 64? Perhaps there has not been one this week. The Opposition have been very quiet this week, but no doubt there will be at least one more press conference at which they will produce one more version of their replacement for the poll tax.
The Opposition have to be fair. It is all very well for them to attack Conservative Members and Treasury Bench Ministers. I was a member of the Committee that considered the poll tax Bill and I am as guilty as anybody. I regret my support for the poll tax. If the Opposition want me to apologise, that is fine, but at the same time they must apologise for crawling to the International Monetary Fund in 1976 and for slashing public expenditure on water and sewerage infrastructure and so on when the last Labour Government were in power. If they are prepared to do that, we shall be quits. My point is that they have to come up with their final alternative and they have not yet done so. I notice that no Labour Member is rising to his feet. I certainly do not want to encourage any of them to do so.
I understand that the council tax will provide about 14 per cent. of local authority revenue, on average, in the United Kingdom, but even less in Wales. The rest will be provided by central Government grant and the uniform business rate. In my view, that is far too low a percentage of local authority revenue to be raised by means of a local tax.
The council tax alone is under local authority control and must finance any additional council spending. On average, a 1 per cent. increase in spending will require at least a 7 per cent. increase in council tax bills. The gearing, therefore, is 7:1. It may be more than that. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) had to say about standard spending assessments, which he referred to as "estimates"—which is clearly what they are. They are not precisely determined and can never be so. However, the amount of gearing depends upon the accuracy of the SSAs, which are the Government's estimate of the amount that counties need to spend to provide a standard level of service. As 1 say, they cannot be calculated precisely and the council tax increase that will be required to cover any underestimate in the SSAs will be magnified by the gearing factor.


Gearing was a major factor, if not the sole factor, in the downfall of the poll tax. Yet it is still a major feature of the council tax. That is what concerns me. The council tax is a better and fairer tax. I will not get too carried away because, although I will not be here in the next Parliament, my words may be thrown back at my hon. Friends. I am not particularly enamoured by the council tax. At least it got us off the hook of the poll tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We all know that, so why not say it. We do not want to move from one fire into another fire and, as I have said, I am concerned about gearing.
The only way around the gearing problem, to diminish it, would be for councils to control more than the current 14 per cent. of their expenditure in the United Kingdom as a whole. That could be done by reducing the number of services for which councils are responsible. I am not keen on that idea and I do not think that many hon. Members would be keen on it because most of us believe in local government and I want to see it strengthened. I would not be too unhappy about the fire service and the police being hived off, but no more than that.
Another way to diminish gearing would be to make councils responsible for raising more of their revenue. We could, for example, give them control of the business rate. I have reservations about that. At least now business and industry are able to plan ahead, knowing roughly the bills they will be facing with the uniform business rate.
I remember my first few years in the House. Just before the rates were set, industries and businesses came to see me as they were justifiably anxious about the rise in rates in Clwyd. So, if they were once again to be given control of the business rate, there would have to be certain limits so that increases would not damage industry or competitiveness. There must be other ways to diminish the gearing factor and I should like them to be examined. Councils should have the right to raise more of their revenue.
The main problem with the council tax or any major reform of local government finance—on this I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West and, although we did not compare notes, we think similarly —is that we are dealing with local government reforms the wrong way round. We are dealing with them in reverse order. This follows what I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech. We should have started with functions and internal management, moved on to format and structure and then dealt with how to finance the new structure with its revised functions. That is what we should have done in an ideal world. However, we are in a post-poll tax world, not an ideal one. Because of the political necessity of replacing the poll tax as soon as possible we had to deal with local government finance first. If we had done it in the order that I suggested, we would have had a much better chance of getting the local government finance system right.
All local government reforms—functions, finance and format—should be conceived and considered in relation to an all-Wales tier. I said on the radio the other morning, probably before most hon. Members were up—although I know that one person was up—that the first attempt to introduce Welsh home rule was an amendment to a Bill dealing with local government. It was moved by T. E. Ellis, the then Member for Merionethshire. That is how home

rule was first attempted in Wales. Post second world war, it has been referred to as devolution. We must look at an all-Wales tier in a pragmatic way.
It is no use my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary talking about a Mickey Mouse Parliament. That will not convince anybody. There must be arguments from Ministers on this issue. If we move to one-tier authorities, where will the strategic planning and the transport and infrastructure planning happen, and who will carry it out? These are all-Wales issues and they need an all-Wales tier. Currently, on devolution, the Government seem to be blinded by the headlights of public opinion, stunned and unable to move other than to grope robotically for historic allusions to past referendums that have no relation to the here and now.
I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today. That is progress—we are to have a debate on the constitutional issue and, indeed, we should do so. As I said during business questions the other week, if the Scots are to have three debates—one in Edinburgh—we should at least have one, and I am glad that it is to be in Cardiff. I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East and I earlier today in the Grand Committee. I raise it again now because it received no response—we should have that debate before mid-March, preferably before the Budget so that it will happen during this Parliament. It is an election issue and must be debated before the election.
A new local government tax cannot be successfully conceived and born in isolation, cut off from discussion of the functions and format for which it will pay. Indeed, it should have been considered and debated not only in those contexts but in the much wider context of how local government is to fit in with regional government because they are interlocked and fitted into the government of the nation as a whole.

Mr. Allan Rogers: We shall miss the rapid-fire verbosity of the hon. Member for whatever it is in north Wales. Between his speech and the tie of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), I feel rather dizzy. I do not know whether it is the Amman Valley old boy's tie that he is wearing but at least it adds a little colour to the occasion.
Because of the strictures on time, I shall deal with only two problems, one of which I rehearsed in the Welsh Grand Committee but to which the Minister of State did not answer—the problem of the teachers' pay award. I hope that it can be dealt with during the wind-up speech. I deal with the issue as it applies to Mid-Glamorgan.
As I said in the Grand Committee, if the 7·8 per cent. overall award is granted, Mid-Glamorgan will have to find £1·7 million to pay it. The Government are going to give it additional funding of only £700,000, which means that Mid-Glamorgan will have to find £1 million—a very nice convenient figure. What can Mid-Glamorgan do about the shortfall? It could cut services, which it has already done in some areas; the only alternative—I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening—is to put £3 on the poll tax, and Mid-Glamorgan will have to do that unless the Under-Secretary of State can say now that the Government are prepared to fund the whole of the award.
We know that the award has been made at this time for electoral purposes, so why do not the Secretary of State


and the Government have the guts to fund it? If one is going to bribe people, one should at least have the gumption to pay the whole bribe. One should not tell people to pay three quarters of the bribe themselves. That is a bit unfair—even by this Government's yardstick, it is a bit much.
The authority is already budgeting to maintain services: it is about 2·2 per cent. over its standard spending assessment, so there is no way it can fund the award without pushing up the poll tax. I know that you would pull me up for using bad parliamentary language, Madam Deputy Speaker; I would have liked to say that the Government have a bloody cheek to act in the way they have, but I am not allowed to say that.
Another issue about which I am very concerned is that of rents of factories. I am not sure what is happening in Wales, but I have suddenly received a rush—or a rash, however one wants to describe it—of papers coming through my fax from companies in the Rhondda which are being asked for huge rent rises from the Welsh Development Agency or the local authority. Whoever owns these factories—[interruption.] May I ask my hon. Friends to allow me to develop my case for a moment?
The rent rises, whether from the local authority or the WDA, are instigated by the district valuer. He is obliged to advise local authorities on economic rents when the revision takes place—it is like chasing one's tail. The district valuer says to the council, "That is what I consider an economic rent," and the councillors have to implement that rent. If they ignore it, they will be surcharged and called before the district auditor.
The situation is ridiculous. The Rhondda valley has high unemployment, and by any socio-economic indicator it is one of the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom. New factories are being built there, and the Government are saying how wonderful they are to help. I applaud the development, because we need the factories, but now the factories are being shut down because nobody can afford to pay the rents. The daft thing about it all is that 30 per cent. of the factories are empty anyway.
Local authorities have to charge the rents charged by the district valuers, or risk being surcharged. That means that firms are getting thrown out of factories or having to leave them, and people are being thrown out of work. Buildings are being vandalised because there is no one there. That all results in an even greater charge on the community.
I have raised two practical points, and I hope that they can be resolved. The first is the fact that the county council will have to add at least £3 per head to the poll tax in order to fund the electoral bribe for teachers. The second is the issue of rent increases for factories run by the Welsh Development Agency or by local authorities. I should appreciate it if the Minister would deal with those two matters.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on achieving the brevity that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have sought from us all the evening. I shall try to emulate him.
I do not understand why the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) brought up the hoary old chestnut of unspent council receipts. I invite the hon. Gentleman to identify one bank account in Wales in which

a local council has on deposit council house receipts that it cannot spend. Such a bank account does not exist anywhere in Wales. Will the hon. Gentleman find me one?
The moneys are used to repay debts already accumulated by councils—and rightly so. If they were not, local community charge payers would have to pay twice.

Mr. Huw Edwards: rose—

Mr. Jones: I shall give way once only. I am trying to be brief.

Mr. Edwards: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in the past 10 years, £741 million has accrued to local authorities in Wales through capital receipts, and that 25 per cent. is still supposed to be spent, according to the Under-Secretary of State? Is he convinced that 25 per cent. of capital receipts in Cardiff is being spent?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman walks into the same pitfall as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. I invite him, too, to identify one bank account in Wales in which moneys are lying, not being used. The moneys are being used to redeem debt, and rightly so.
I shall pick up the theme pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). It may be superficially tempting to say what a good deal a community charge represents. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the average for Wales should be £85—only 7 per cent. of the total that local councils spend. My arithmetic tells me that, for every average community charge of £85, some £1,214 is being contributed from sources outside the local council.
However, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) tried to say on one of his frequent visits to the Chamber, nothing is for free. It is we, the taxpayers, who have to pay all that money—from whatever source it comes. It therefore behoves us as Members of Parliament
—indeed, it behoves every citizen—carefully to consider all the implications of local council spending.
The reports before the House are good ones. As my right hon. Friend has said, they again put us in a position superior to that of England. They provide an increase of 8·5 per cent. over the comparable figure for last year, and even a 5·1 per cent. increase over the budgets of local councils in Wales. No one could suggest that that is not an increase in real terms, however, those real terms are calculated.
The aggregate external finance has increased by a massive 24 per cent. As my right hon. Friend said today, and in his statement on 13 January, he expects local councils to rise to the challenge. He was wise to remind us of his capping powers. It would be desirable if we could continue not to use those powers, but I do not believe for one moment that we should flinch from using them should that be necessary.
I am particularly pleased that the uniform business rate has gone up by less than the rate of inflation. That is most important at a time when we want to complete the recovery from the recession. That business rate is a great relief to local companies in comparison with the situation they faced not so long ago, when they were at the mercy of local councils. In the past, Cardiff has been subject to some horrendous rate increases—for example, 97·5 per cent. one year and 54 per cent. another.
In the first year in which the community charge operated, it was reliably estimated that it should have been


set at £150, but we ended up with a charge of £250. Thanks to the Government, relief from community charge payments has been extended to all community charge payers in Cardiff. The reduction of £140 halved that community charge.
If prudent financial practices had been followed from the beginning by South Glamorgan council, the community charge of Cardiff could have been set at the same level as that for Wandsworth. We could have had a zero community charge.
If I was a member of the Opposition, perhaps I would now be talking about the hidden agenda. Such a discussion about Cardiff is not necessary, because South Glamorgan council, in advance of its community charge debate tomorrow afternoon, has published its plans for extra spending that it would like to undertake. They amount to another £25 million on top of the SSA.
I have been warned by Councillor Bernard Rees, the leader of the Conservative group on South Glamorgan council, that if, heaven forbid, there was a Labour Government, the community charge for everyone in Cardiff would double overnight. My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that even worse might befall those of us in Cardiff, because he told us how the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) envisaged that the community charge in Wales would treble. Instead of the current charge of £140, every charge payer in Cardiff might have to find a minimum of £450. It is conspicuous that, when my right hon. Friend raised that matter in the Welsh Grand Committee earlier and in the Chamber tonight, there was no answer from those sitting on the Labour Front Bench.
What have we got to show in Cardiff for the extortionate demands placed upon the charge payers? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central has already referred to some peculiar commercial developments that the council has insisted upon. He reminded us of the tennis centre at Sully, and about the Gardenhurst centre for old people in Penarth. I will not comment on them, because they are outside my constituency, but I understand that they are being forced through in the teeth of great local opposition with complete disregard for local people's feelings.
My hon. Friend also referred to Corpus Christi high school, in which I have an interest because there are plans to relocate it at a green field site in my constituency. My local residents and councillors are just as fiercely opposed to that, and I shall continue to support them.
The most notorious of the controversial proposals is to build a medicentre—a commercial development—on one of the few open spaces of the University hospital of Wales. Why on earth is the council going in for that commercial development, especially as it is on a national health service site? Have we any confidence that the council could make those commercial developments work? I have little confidence, and I certainly would not entrust any commercial developments to it.
What else have we got to show for the high demands placed upon charge payers? We spent a lot of time today in Committee talking about education. Unfortunately, South Glamorgan council is one of the lowest spenders per head on education. Local citizens would immediately want to ask about the roads. By local repute, we have some of the worst roads in Wales. I recently called on a constituent,

Mr. Full, who is trying to get one solitary extra light in Rhiwbina. He has received exactly the same correspondence from the council for the past 10 years. In fact, he has ended up with a more depressing reply than the one he first received 10 years ago.
I listened intently to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), but I listened in vain for something substantial. I heard some hypocrisy about the RECHAR money, and I feel strongly about that. It is our money, because Britain is a net contributor to the Common Market. At best, it is an example of the problems with which the Government are trying to deal. The Common Market should be a collection of equal sovereign states and money should not be withheld at the whim of bureaucrats.
At worst, it is a case of party politics, because the Commissioner who seeks to thwart our desire for that money is a Labour nominee. I should be more than curious to know what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside has been doing to persuade his Labour colleague to stop blocking that money for Britain.
I also listened in vain to the hon. Gentleman's speech for a clear-cut answer about how much he would give local councils in Wales. His speech was full of criticism of the Government, but he had no positive proposals to make.
Devolution has been mentioned by more than one hon. Member. I am sure that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is striving to speak, but before he does so, may I say this: hands off Cardiff city hall. Cardiff city hall is the much-loved headquarters of our local council. For as long as any citizen of Cardiff can remember, it has been the home of Cardiff's local council. I hope that, after the reform of local government in Wales, we shall make that city hall once again the headquarters of a much more local, relevant and loved local council. I accept that we can allow visitors in, but we should never let the city hall be taken over by a remote quango.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon is right to be concerned about the form and geographical convenience of a regional assembly for Wales, but it should be in the style of a slatted shed usually preferred by DIY distributors. Moreover, I am sure that the overwhelming majority of Welsh people would prefer it to be sited in Aberystwyth.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: It is interesting that, of the four Conservative Back Benchers from Wales, two have spoken in favour of an elected all-Wales body, albeit their viewpoints differ from mine. I advocate strongly that there should be a national parliament but the need for democracy on a all-Wales level is now becoming an accepted factor. In considering the future of the government of Wales, the future of local government or the structure of financing, the all-Wales aspect must be taken into account. We cannot continue as we are, possibly into another Parliament. If the Government win the election and return for the fourth time as a Conservative Government, perhaps with even fewer seats in Wales—of the 38 seats, the Conservatives hold only six —a democratic deficit will have to be met.
Another problem is how to achieve a proper strategic body if we move to a local government structure as proposed by the Secretary of State in his consultation document. All those questions must be taken on board.


Many hon. Members have referred tonight to the nonsense into which local government finance has now entered. No one could argue that the proportions coming from the centre are probably too high. The methods of raising money at local government level worry all of us. The poll tax is a nonsense and its residual elements are still grotesquely unfair, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said. However, no one could argue that, if we are to have local democracy, the need to raise money locally should not be taken on board. The question is how that should be done fairly and how we can achieve a proper balance between central and local responsibility.
One of the problems is that, in so many ways, local government acts as an agency for central Government. It cannot control so many of its responsibilities and it cannot decide what it does because it is constrained by legislation.

Mr. Anderson: There is very little discretion.

Mr. Wigley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the coming year we shall face more responsibility falling on local government in Wales. In 12 months time, the community care package will land. My local authority of Gwynedd faces a bill of some £750,000 and has asked the Secretary of State for help with that money in order to tackle care in the community. As more responsibilty is placed on local government, it will inevitably look to the centre for funding. Clearly, somebody has to pay for those activities, and we must have care in the community. It is not a cut-price option and must be paid for. We must introduce a mechanism to do so in an equitable manner so that those who can afford to shoulder a greater proportion of the burden do so.
My party and I favour a local income tax, but we could argue about the exact way of going about it. However, if local democracy is to mean something, there must be a fund-raising mechanism. I accept that that is equally true on the all-Wales level. If there is to be a meaningful all-Wales tier of government, that must have financial responsibility, which means the ability to raise funds. That could possibly be done by transfer to that organisation of some of the taxes currently raised—for example, value added tax.
I asked a question of the Secretary of State that has still not been answered. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) mentioned the Mid-Glamorgan equivalent of the issue that I raised in the context of Gwynedd, where we have a £500,000 shortfall in relation to the teachers' pay settlement, which has implications. If, as Gwynedd people have told me today, the implications involve either the sacking of a significant number of teachers or a significant increase in the poll tax, I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to look at the figures that Gwynedd proposes and show where they are wrong, if they are. If they are right, I hope that he will face up to the implications of that.
We face a housing crisis. One half, or even two thirds, of the cases that come up in surgery after surgery involve people who cannot find a place to live. The Secretary of State cannot avoid the fact that there is a crisis. Since 1979, the number of rented accommodation units available from local authorities has dropped from 308,000 to 226,000—a reduction of 82,000 in the number of council houses in Wales due to the Government's policy of selling them off.

Those houses are no longer available and, as the cycle revolves, with people dying off or moving away, their houses are not available for letting to people on the list.
In the same period, the number of private rented accommodation units in Wales has dropped from 114,000 to 80,000—a reduction of 34,000. We have to counter balance against that an increase of only 14,000 in housing association units. Therefore, although we have lost 116,000 units, we have gained just 14,000—a net loss of 102,000.
Those problems would not be as bad if the people involved were in a financial position to buy their own houses, but they are not. They are out of work or, if they are in work, they have the insecurity of seeing redundancies and closures all around them.
In the Dwyfor district of my constituency, 400 people are on the waiting list for housing and cannot get houses, 20 per cent. of the housing stock are second homes which are empty for large proportions of the year and there are 800 houses on the market that people cannot sell. They are for sale at prices that people cannot afford to buy, and the local authority does not have the resources to buy the houses to rent them to those who want them. That is mismanagement.
We must crack the problem because we are creating social problems. What I have described in Dwyfor is as bad or even worse in the Arfon district, where it is compounded by the growth of University College of North Wales, Bangor. We welcome the fact that that institution is enjoying such a successful period, but, as the Minister of State knows full well, the availability of housing in Bangor is chronically low. Some 1,500 people in the Arfon district are on the waiting list. People are sleeping out and sleeping in cars, while families are having to split up, with some members living with the father and some with the mother as they have nowhere to live. That problem must be tackled.
I urge the Secretary of State to look at the financial mechanisms available to local authorities in the coming year to find a way to enable them—in one way or another —to get housing moving again so that it is available for rent to those who need it. There is a desperate need, and we must tackle the problem as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The most telling part of tonight's debate was the Secretary of State's confession that he considered the English system for the reduction in the charge to be superior—he nodded earlier. He had considered changing the system, but he decided against it. He was told many times in the Chamber last year and received many letters from my constituents and those of other hon. Members urging him to change the system. The reason he gave for not doing so was that he did not want people to fill out a form.
My constituents in Rogerstone in Newport will be paying £158 in poll tax this year, rather than the £117 that people in other parts of the town will be paying. I am sure that everyone in Rogerstone will be happy to fill out the form if it will save £41—

Mr. David Hunt: In many ways the English system is superior—after all, I devised it when I was the Minister responsible for local government, but I recognised that what local authorities in Wales had proposed was a simple. direct system that did not involve the administrative costs


of the English system. So it is not just a question of filling out a form; it is also a question of administrative costs that would greatly reduce the amount of money available in the first place.

Mr. Flynn: The scheme in Newport, West is uniquely demented, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman before. Every poll tax payer there will pay an average extra £17. That has nothing to do with local authorities , or with the right hon. Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) or for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—the £17 extra this year is due to the Secretary of State. My constituents accept that. What they will not accept is the reason why they pay more in Rogerstone than in Wentloog which, extraordinarily enough, has nothing to do with the fact that one area is deprived and the other prosperous, that one contains many people on income support and the other does not. The reason is that one area has more farms than the other.
Under this crude system, the old rates were looked at. Some areas containing a large number of farms which paid little or no rates—I refer to Wentloog and Nash—pay rates that are artificially low, but deprived areas containing people on low incomes pay high rates. That extraordinary anomaly applies to Newport but not to Rhondda and many other constituencies in Wales. The Secretary of State has been told about this. I invite him to Rogerstone community centre and to the other areas paying the Hunt levy, which amounts to about £41 extra—and it is not due to additional council charges. It is due to decisions taken by the Secretary of State, who could have changed his mind but did not. My constituents will have to pay this levy because of a blunder by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Peter Hain: Listening to the mumbo-jumbo of the Secretary of State's speech, it seemed to me that he was relying far too heavily on the teenage scribblers in the Welsh Office who tell him that all his financial increases mean that local authorities are doing well. At the end of it all, however, West Glamorgan's education budget for the teachers' pay settlement is underfunded by £1 million. That in turn has led to the education budget having to be cut by £2·1 million this year. When the Under-Secretary replies, perhaps he will tell us whether he agrees with that cut, on which he has insisted.
Meanwhile, the poll tax continues in place. According to the Local Government Information Unit, it has cost the people of Wales £1 billion: two years of £140 subsidy, collection losses estimated by the Audit Commission, the cost of the community charge reduction scheme, the cost of transitional relief and the cost of setting up and administering the poll tax.
The unfair and oppressive 20 per cent. rule is still in place; every £6 collected under it costs local authorities £15 to collect. Leaving aside questions of equity, how can it make sense to maintain the 20 per cent. rule on grounds of efficiency? The oppressive unfairness of the tax continues. On Saturday morning I saw in my surgery a pensioner whose husband had died in December and who had received a poll tax arrears bill for £1·95 even though she and he had paid their bills to the borough council on the dot, week in, week out. We all know of similar examples, and the poll tax will continue to be a major issue in the general election.
Another issue that continues to dog the people of Neath is the discriminatory system of transitional relief that the Welsh Office operates. For example, the community area of Blaehonddan is getting no transitional relief this coming year, just as it got none in the year 1991–92. How can it be right that a pensioner couple, with a small miner's pension that takes them above the income support level, should be receiving no transitional relief, while I, with a Member of Parliament's salary, in the area of Resolven am receiving £68 transitional relief? There is no equity in that. We both depend on the same services and we both pay for those services, and we do not get anything more or less for that contribution. I ask the Secretary of State to look again at the way that this system is worked.
I have another point, about gearing and the enormous centralisation of financing of local government that has taken place under this Conservative Government. The position is worse than was suggested by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). Because only 7 per cent. of a local authority's revenue is raised locally, for every 1 per cent. increase in revenue, the poll tax has to go up by 14 per cent. That is an enormous centralisation. It is not local accountability—it is local strangulation.
After 13 years of destructive rule by the Conservative Government, Wales at last has the opportunity to regenerate local democracy, to empower local communities and give them the right to have a say over their destiny. We shall get that right from a Labour Government.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Some of my colleagues have already talked about the housing crisis in their authorities. The difference between the authority that I represent and those that my hon. Friends represent is that I represent the only Conservative district authority in Wales. No Government policy has been more incompetent and inhumane than their housing policy.
A written answer to a question that I put to the Secretary of State shows that £741 million has accrued to local authorities from the sale of council houses in the past 10 years. My authority of Monmouth has accrued £24 million, of which £;10 million has been accumulated in the past three years. Brecknock, the authority of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), has accumulated £24 million, of which £15 million has come in the past three years. In Cardiff, the figures are £79 million in the past 10 years, of which £29 million has come in the past three years. This has happened since the Housing Acts of 1988 and 1989 which effectively put an end to the development of housing by local authorities.
The Government's theory is that local authorities should be enabling people to buy housing, so we have to ask how the Secretary of State and his policies have enabled people on the waiting list in my constituency to get into housing. Those who cannot afford to buy find that there is nothing to rent. The Government introduced legislation that was intended to stimulate the private sector, but we have seen from the figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that the number of private rented units in Wales has declined. Even in the Government's terms, their policies have failed miserably.
In Monmouth there are 2,500 households on the council house waiting list. There is rising homelessness and


no purpose-built accommodation for homeless people. Despite that, the housing revenue subsidy has been cut this year. It is £200,000 short of expenditure on housing benefit. That confirms what people have been saying for years, since the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, that those on low incomes in council houses are subsidising those on the lowest income who are dependent on housing benefit.
Council rents in Monmouth are due to go up by £5·25 across the board. That is a 19 per cent. increase, which is far higher than the increase in the rate of inflation. Officials and councillors are highly embarrassed about the way in which they have to implement those policies in the only Conservative-controlled authority in Wales. In the housing department, three posts are being frozen at a time when it is trying to decentralise its services.
If Monmouth borough council has been able to spend 25 per cent. of its revenue from the sale of council houses in the past three years, why has not one house been built this year? Where has that 25 per cent. of £10 million gone? There is widespread concern in my constituency that that money is being put aside to build new council headquarters on land partly owned by the leader of Monmouth borough council. That was suggested on an HTV Wales television documentary just before Christmas. I hope that it can be confirmed that that is not the case, but there is no support for the building of new council headquarters at Portskewett on the edge of my constituency and the borough.
Even if we accept the Government's argument that money is going into housing associations, only 108 houses are under construction by housing associations in the current year according to a reply to me from the Under-Secretary of State during Welsh questions two weeks ago. How on earth will those 108 houses enable the 2,500 households on the council house waiting list to be rehoused? I can only conclude that, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government have no policy which is more incompetent and which even in their own terms has failed more than their housing policy. We need a Labour Government to rectify that.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I want to return to the question of the funding of the teachers' pay award, because the Secretary of State, in his answer to my earlier intervention, showed that he knew the answer to my question but was hiding under the hypothecation halo of the Treasury. He told us at the beginning that, in drawing up his plans for local government spending and the Government's contribution towards it, he had estimated what the teachers' pay award would be. He admitted that he had underestimated, and so had made a further contribution.
Therefore, I plainly asked the right hon. Gentleman what the difference was that the local authorities would have to find, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us when he replies. In Mid-Glamorgan, the difference is about £1 million, and in West Glamorgan it is a similar figure. In South Glamorgan it is not far short of that. The Minister must be able to give the figure that the local authorities are expected to find by way of efficiency savings to make up that shortfall.
How does the Welsh Office estimate the efficiency savings that local authorities can make when it draws up

its funding proposals for local government? Year by year, it has assumed that there is scope for such efficiency savings. Can it give us an estimate of the likely efficiency savings in local government for the coming financial year? At the same time, will the Minister tell us what the efficiency savings for the Welsh Office will be for the forthcoming year?
Is it not true that central Government spending has risen massively during the Government's lifetime? They have the audacity to accuse local government of overspending and to turn the screw on it while not accepting the blame for their own profligacy, of which the poll tax is the outstanding example. If Ministers had been any body of councillors in the United Kingdom, they would have been surcharged and prevented from serving on any elected body for the rest of their lives.
Local authorities are having to struggle desperately to maintain services. That struggle resulted in appalling decisions having to be taken. The Secretary of State pointed out that my own authority is in the top four for poll tax collection in Wales. There are stories of human hardship and misery behind the accumulation of that money. In the last two months of this year, Ogwr, which has a good record for poll tax collection, will stop the adaptation of properties for the disabled. That is an outrage, but the money has run out. The provision of central heating for people having medical priorities has been stopped because the authority does not have the money for that either.
The Welsh Office says that it is the provider of largesse beyond the dreams of any local government leader, yet there is example after example of difficult decisions being made by local authorities as to which services can be provided, and which must be cut back.
The Government and Welsh Office Ministers will not have the opportunity to bring about their threats of poll tax capping, because after 9 April they will not be in office. It will again be left to a Labour Government to pick up the pieces of the disaster that Tory rule has brought to Wales. Local government spending priorities will have to be reordered to ensure that the people who really need help will get it in the coming financial year.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want to say one word to the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary, and that is "increments". It is a little like a scene in "The Graduate", in which one of the characters says to Ben, "I just want to say one word to you—plastics." I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, remember that scene from "The Graduate", which I am sure you saw several times—unless you went to see "The Sound of Music" instead.
The word "increments" is critical. County treasurers say, "If only the Welsh Office would accept the impact of increments on the total cost of teachers' pay next year, compared with this year, there would be no need for 90 per cent. of the hassle and haggling involved in arguing, as we are now, whether or not the rate support grant settlement is fair."
I was disappointed by the Secretary of State's reply to my earlier intervention, when I asked whether local government finance experts in the Welsh Office had reached agreement with county council treasurers' departments on the total cost of providing next year the


same basket of local government services, and the percentage increase required to meet it—known as a service standstill budget.
South Glamorgan has a no-growth budget, but that is not the same as a service standstill budget. It is much less than that. It involves genuine cuts, which have already been announced, and have created the same sort of crisis in South Glamorgan that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned have arisen in respect of education cutbacks in Mid-Glamorgan.
In future years, I would like to see local government finance civil servants and county and district treasurers get together and give evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs or some other suitable body, with assistance from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and other local government finance experts. Right hon. and hon. Members could still engage in arguments about politics, but not about figures. It ought to be possible for finance experts to agree between themselves the expected cost in 1992 of providing the same services available in 1991. Then we as politicians have only to come in and put the cream on the coffee. We can say that if an authority wants to expand services in certain areas it will cost a certain amount extra, on top of the 8·5 or the 7·9 or the 9·8 or whatever figure the finance experts tell us will give us the same basket of services next year as we are already getting this year, our base line which we all know about.
At the moment we are wasting time on a colossal scale in the House every year by going through this charade and being unable to agree because, as the Secretary of State has confirmed, he cannot agree with the county councils and their treasurers and with the district councils and their treasurers on whether we can accurately say what the cost will be, allowing for inflation and also for the particular way in which increments in teachers' pay and so on impact on a labour-intensive service such as local government. We could then reduce our argument to the politics of the situation, whether the public really wanted to pay for extra services, the same services, or lower services. That is what we should be arguing about. I would like the Under-Secretary of State to give some attention to that in his reply.

Mr. Alun Michael: The best thing about this settlement is that it is the last from a Conservative Secretary of State for a long time to come. It has been memorable for the way in which the "demob happy" Tory twins of Clwyd launched their devastating attacks on 13 years of Conservative rule and what the Conservatives have done to undermine local democracy in Wales. It is ironic that the two Conservative Members who are standing down at the election now appear to support the policies of the Welsh Labour party.
For 13 years the Conservatives have used their position to lay waste local government and public services in Wales. They have underfunded local government. They have put 70,000 on the waiting lists, and condemned families to the horrors of homelessness. They have created a crisis in social services, with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary pontificating on what others should do while neglecting to offer real help and encouragement to those who have to

work with the most neglected and difficult children in our society. While cutting the real value of pensions, they have transferred the responsibility for the care of the elderly from central to local government. They have paid scant regard to the increasing number of elderly people in Wales and have simply failed to provide the resources to match the need.
They have left us a heritage of crumbling schools, stolen our colleges from us and undermined the development of tertiary colleges in Wales in a callous and cavalier manner which has shocked the dedicated councillors and teachers who have shown love and care for our places of education —the Parliamentary Under-Secretary appears to be laughing at the education of children in Wales—and for the young people who need them so desperately.
That is the record, and the settlement that we are debating today is no different. The districts needed 11 per cent. to maintain vital services; they are being given just over 5 per cent. The Government's SSAs for the Welsh districts amount to £7 million below this year's budgets, and that with councils using £17 million of their own reserves. For 13 years the Government have imposed new duties on Welsh councils without giving them enough money to carry out those duties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) gave the example of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is a fine thing to want better standards of refuse disposal, street cleaning, pest control and so on, but the shortage of cash is causing problems and distortions. Anyone who has examined the problems of waste disposal in south Wales knows that we have a crisis on our hands which needs a partnership between the Welsh Office and local government, not a diktat from on high or simple percentages on the previous year.
I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that care in the community is not a cheap option. We have a terrible shortage of day care facilities for the mentally ill, for adults with learning difficulties, for people with Alzheimer's disease and for their carers, who shoulder such an enormous and painful burden. How can councils pick up that burden when the Government have slashed the proportion that they give towards the cost of local services? Where is the cash needed to create facilities, training for employment and job opportunities for the mentally disabled?
In my own county of South Glamorgan I have great sympathy for councillors who have had to slash £4 million to get within the Minister's unrealistic limits. The cuts have been painful. For instance, they have had to cut money for part-time youth centres. There is a proven link, which I would have thought the Secretary of State himself, in view of his past, would be concerned about, between youth provision and success in combating the rise in crime among young people.
I accuse Welsh Office Ministers of creating conditions in which crime can flourish in many of our communities, which already have pain enough to bear. I cannot fault the local councillors, who have had to give priority to keeping the schools budget intact, but I can condemn the Welsh Office Ministers who have confronted them with such a painful dilemma.
During the years of the oil revenue bonanza, the Government have failed to provide the cash that is needed to bring our schools up to standard. Our councillors have tried desperately to keep up with the need. This year, South Glamorgan has had to cut the building maintenance


programme for schools by 40 per cent.—£1·5 million—to meet the Government's unrealistic target and I know that other authorities throughout Wales have experienced the same problem. The Welsh Office Ministers must carry the can for that pain, too.
As several of my hon. Friends have mentioned, the Secretary of State came out with a further devastating announcement this week to add to all that pain. He announced bad news as if he were Father Christmas or the tooth fairy. Let me spell it out. After the news of the teachers' settlement, the Secretary of State has refined his figures and has tried to say that he is being generous. That is a cruel hoax, which might be described outside this place —without fear of legal action—as misrepresentation.
In South Glamorgan, the cost of the teachers' pay award is £1·09 million, but the Secretary of State has increased the SSA by only £540,000. The extra cash that he has provided is even less—only £531,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and others have given the equivalent figures for their local authorities.
That means that councillors who have spent months struggling to get within their SSA suddenly have to find an extra £459,000 in cash terms, and £450,000 in terms of cuts, just to stay within that SSA. Until this week, they were succeeding; now, only 24 hours ahead of the rate-setting meeting, the Secretary of State has told them to pull another £450,000 out of thin air. That is absurd and it is irresponsible of the Secretary of State.
I want the Minister to give three undertakings to all the hon. Members who have raised that point tonight. l want him, first, to promise to reconsider the cash allocation; secondly, to promise to reconsider the SSAs and set a reasonable level; and, thirdly, to promise to discount the new cash gap when considering whether to impose a poll tax cap. Only a cynical and irresponsible Minister would fail to give a positive response to all three requests.
Even before that piece of news, councils were plagued by the complexity, rigidity and plain unfairness of the grant system—the so-called SSAs. This is a lottery without sense or logic. Six districts have been allowed increases that would plunge them into financial difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) says that his council would suffer a decrease in real terms, and the Council of Welsh Districts has begged the Welsh Office for a safety net or loss limiter to guard against such wild variations.
As the place names show, the effect of the Government's system fall most heavily on our most needy areas, particularly in the valleys. The Government boast about home improvement grants, yet they are reducing the contribution to councils from 90 to 75 per cent., which means an impact on poll tax bills that one estimate puts at some £2 or £3. That is a hidden and dishonest cut for local authorities to bear.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the money provided for economic development, which has suffered a 30 per cent. cut in two years. A number of our local authorities have an outstanding record in securing inward investment. A Secretary of State who seeks praise for his own efforts in that regard should not only acknowledge their success but give them the tools for the job along with the generous praise.
The shadow of the poll tax falls over this settlement. Unlike the Government, the Minister who will wind up the debate still supports the poll tax: I understand from

sedentary remarks that he made earlier that he would like to retain it. Will he be honest with the House and the people of Wales tonight?
We have had £100 million wasted and lost to Wales. There have been massive collection problems, the amount uncollected being £17 million. The number of summonses issued is 500,000, and there has been an enormous waste of time and effort for the very people who told the Conservative party that the poll tax would not work.
Even after all the furore of the poll tax, the Government are providing inadequate funds to provide for their new and unfair council tax. The amount being provided for capital costs is inadequate, and for revenue expenditure the provision is £6 million instead of the necessary £8 million. Why, in the name of fair play, should Welsh councils and the people who live in their areas have to pay yet again for the Conservative party's blunders and for the refusal of Ministers to listen to common sense from Opposition Members, who understand and have practical experience of local government finance? Not only have the Government failed to grapple with the whole question of local government finance in Wales but Conservative Ministers have plunged our councils into chaos and wasted millions of pounds, and have then had the cheek to lecture us about tax.
In contrast, Welsh councils have yet again this year proved responsible, spending 1·8 per cent. less than their English counterparts despite 13 years' grievous suffering under the Government. But even now the Conservatives plan more obstacles and burdens for the people of Wales. Those of us who were working until five o'clock this morning in the Committee dealing with the Local Government Bill know that only too well. In a few months' time, thank goodness, a Labour Government will give new meaning to local government in Wales and fresh help to local councils and to those who rely on and enjoy their services.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) would find it hard to believe that the Government are increasing by 8·7 per cent. the total spending assessment for next year and that the provision will be 23 per cent. more than it was in 1990–91. Before the implementation of the £140 general reduction, the increase over two years was 35 per cent. Anyone listening to the hon. Gentleman would find it hard to believe that the average SSA increases of 8·7 per cent. for district and 8·1 per cent. for counties in the coming year will mean that assessments have increased by one quarter in just two years. Nor would anyone know that the Labour party, when it was in power, far from increasing local government expenditure in Wales, reduced it year after year. In 1976–77 provision went down by 4 per cent., the following year the reduction was 8 per cent., the year after it was 4 per cent., and then the party was thrown out of office.
This is the sort of nonsense that we are getting from the Labour party. A party that reduced local government spending complains that the present Government have increased spending by more than the rate of inflation and have made sure that the charge payers in Wales will pay


only 7 per cent. of the total bill for local government services across the board. Anyone listening to Opposition Members would not know that.
Nor have the Opposition made clear their policies on spending. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), in a speech lasting about 25 minutes, did not once tell the House what level of local government spending would be acceptable to Labour. All we heard from the hon. Gentleman was how his party would spend more every year. Every year at this time the hon. Gentleman makes the same speech about how his party would spend more, about how the local authorities in Wales are hard done by. Not once has he told the House how much more he would allow those local authorities to spend if he were the Secretary of State. He has not said what level of community charge would be acceptable to a Labour Government. We never hear from the Labour party what its real plans are. Those of us who watch the shadow Secretary of State's progress round Wales know that every day another spending promise is made in the Welsh press and on Welsh television. Not once have we been given the prices to go with the menu. That is the Labour party when it comes to local government expenditure in Wales.
We should spend some time warning the people of Wales what the Labour party, if it ever came to power, would mean for local government. First, it would mean higher spending by local authorities. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that his party planned to increase the proportion of council spending met by the community charge payers in England from 14 per cent. to 20 per cent. If the same figures applied in Wales, that would result in a jump from 7 per cent. to 20 per cent. The Labour party has never told us what its figures would be.
Only a few weeks ago the deputy leader of the Labour party said in the Local Government Chronicle:
I promise that when Labour is back in government … you will certainly get more than you receive now.
Again we were not told by the deputy leader what the promises would mean. The simple fact is that we do not get any honesty whatsover from the Labour party about its spending plans or its policies, or what its policies would be for raising the necessary taxation.
In 1980 the Labour party said that the rates were unjust. In 1985 the leader of the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities said:
Rates over the years have become widely detested both by those who have to pay them and those who have to defend raising them.
In 1990 the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that
Labour agrees that the rates system was flawed.
But now we hear that the Labour party would bring back the rating system. The people of Wales need to know that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) says that they would be fair. The word "fair" has the same connotation, when talking about fair rates, as the word "democratic" had in the German Democratic Republic, or that "people" has in people's republics. It is a weasel word that has no connection whatsoever with its true meaning.
The Labour party is already committed to bringing back the rating system with knobs on it. The Labour party would introduce four different factors for assessing rates: market price, rebuilding costs, maintenance and repair

costs, and private rents. Of course, the Labour party has told nobody what sort of weighting factors there would be on any one of those four. In addition, the Labour party is committed to an annual rolling revaluation for every one of the 22 million domestic properties. When asked at a press conference about the cost of revaluing 20 million properties four times over, the hon. Member for Dagenham said, "I do not know." That is what we are getting from the Labour party time and time again. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—

Mr. Alan W. Williams: rose—

Mr. Bennett: There he goes. The hon. Gentleman has just come in. He has not been present.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister in order? All that he has done so far is to attack the Labour party's policies. The debate is about the revenue support grant for Wales. I know that the Conservative party is preparing to be in opposition and that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is preparing to be out of work after the election, but is this in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is quite in order to compare policies. It is happening in the House all the time.

Mr. Bennett: Had the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) been here, he would have heard silence from Labour party Members about their policies. I have to fill that vacuum by telling the people of Wales what the Labour party's policies are.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who had so much fun in attacking this side of the House, said at this Dispatch Box when he was a Minister:
I would go further and call attention to the main anomolies inherent in the rating system."—[Official Report, 5 July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 848.]
He now wants to bring back that very system which, when he was a Minister, he was committed to getting rid of.
In addition, the Labour party wants to make sure that council tax payers will pay more. It wants to abolish compulsory competitive tendering and to stop what it calls the privatisation of essential public services. The hon. Member for Brightside said that at the Labour party conference. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) said, the Labour party wants to introduce a Welsh assembly, something which the Leader of the Opposition was opposed to in 1974 and in 1978. Now he is in favour of it. The cost to the Welsh people of a Mickey Mouse assembly in Cardiff would be £50 million. It would duplicate the work done by this House and would ensure that Opposition Members became second class citizens in this House.
We have also heard that the Labour party is against —[Interruption.] That is one of the things that it does not like. That is why Labour Members stand up and shout, but they will not achieve their objective.


The hon. Member for Dagenham said:
I shall be precise. There will be no provision for capping in any legislation that we introduce."—[Official Report, 6 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 472.]
The hon. Gentleman also said:
I promise that when Labour is back in government the coercive element in the local government grant will be removed. You may not get as much from a Labour Chancellor as you want. But you will certainly get more than you receive now.
On 15 February 1991 in The New Statesman and Society, when asked whether he would allow councils to increase their annual rates by 60 per cent., the hon. Member for Dagenham said:
I don't see, even then, that we would want to come in and cap.
That is the prospect for the people of Wales if the Labour party ever came to power. The Opposition's policy would be spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax. There would be no Government controls. Opposition Members do not want to hear this. They want to shout it down because they know that it will be electorally unpopular.
Another policy that the Labour party has up its sleeve is one specifically made for business. Instead of a national business rate, whereby we protect businesses by ensuring that there cannot be an increase of more than the rate of inflation, the Labour party wants to take away the national business rate and give control back to the local authorities. The first thing that would happen, as in the old days, is that the local authorities would target businesses for extra taxation in order to finance their high spending plans. Even looking at the first two years of the non-domestic rate, if it had been based on the spending plans of local authorities in Wales, the rate would have been 3p higher than it will be this year as a result of Government controls. The Opposition do not want to hear that because we are pointing out the difference between what they say here and what is in their policy documents and what it will mean for the domestic charge payer and the business charge payer.
We are also told, in the words of the hon. Member for Dagenham, that the Labour party rebate system would "pauperise millions of people". It will be of great interest to the people of Wales to know that a Labour rebate system will make it difficult for many of those who are currently able to claim rebates as of right. They would be losers under the Labour party's policy 
We have heard that the Labour party wants regional government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I put the Question, I should inform the House that some hon. Members may find it a little difficult to get to the Lobbies. Access is available, but in view of the difficulties, I propose to add five minutes to the Division.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 February].

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 132.

Division No. 80]
[10.22 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Sir Thomas


Allason, Rupert
Ashby, David


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert


Amos, Alan
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony





Beggs, Roy
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David


Benyon, W.
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Latham, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Body, Sir Richard
Lightbown, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Peter
Lord, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
McCrea, Rev William


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Malins, Humfrey


Chapman, Sydney
Mans, Keith


Conway, Derek
Marland, Paul


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Curry, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dykes, Hugh
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Eggar, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Emery, Sir Peter
Miller, Sir Hal


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mills, Iain


Evennett, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Fallon, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Farr, Sir John
Moate, Roger


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Monro, Sir Hector


Fishburn, John Dudley
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fookes, Dame Janet
Moss, Malcolm


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Franks, Cecil
Nelson, Antony


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gill, Christopher
Norris, Steve


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Page, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Patnick, Irvine


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pawsey, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gregory, Conal
Porter, Barry(Wirral S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Grist, Ian
Price, Sir David


Ground, Patrick
Raffan, Keith


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Hague, William
Riddick, Graham


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Harris, David
Rowe, Andrew


Haselhurst, Alan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayes, Jerry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Shelton, Sir William


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hill, James
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hind, Kenneth
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Sir Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stern, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Stevens, Lewis


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Irvine, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Jack, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Jackson, Robert
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Janman, Tim
Thompson, Patrick Norwich N)


Jessel, Toby
Thurnham, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Tracey, Richard


Key, Robert
Tredinnick, David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tripper, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John






Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Warren, Kenneth
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wheeler, Sir John



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Ayes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Tom Sackville.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Flynn, Paul


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godma Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Battle, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hain, Peter


Benton, Joseph
Hardy, Peter


Blunkett, David
Haynes, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Hinchliffe, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howarth, Geroge (Knowsley N)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Caborn, Richard
Hoyle, Doug


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ingram, Adam


Clelland, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Crowther, Stan
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cummings, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamond, James


Darling, Alistair
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Livsey, Richard


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Doran, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAllion, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Edwards, Huw
McCartney, Ian


Enright, Derek
McFall, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fatchett, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Fearn, Ronald
McMaster, Gordon





McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Joan


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, J.P. (Value of Glam)


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stephen, Nicol


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Strang, Gavin


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Turner, Dennis


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Nellist, Dave
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert N.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wigley,Dafydd


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Reid, Dr John



Robinson, Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes;


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Rooney, Terence
Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1992–93 (Revised) (House of Commons Paper No. 247), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining motions.

Resolved,
That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 4) (House of Commons Paper No. 241), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 3) (House of Commons Paper No. 153), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Horticulture

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mrs. Marion Roe: I am grateful for the opportunity of initiating an Adjournment debate on horticulture, a subject in which I take a great interest. In addition to my constituency concerns, I am also chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench horticulture committee and parliamentary adviser to the Horticultural Trades Association, a fact that appears in the Register of Members' Interests.
Since this subject was last debated, the Government have made positive moves to help horticulture. 1 have been approached by many growers and asked to express their gratitude. The Government's commitment of £25 million for the restructuring of Horticulture Research International has been warmly received, as has the recent announcement of a £5 million allocation to improve horticultural marketing through existing and new producer groups. Those are welcome and positive signs for the industry, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to look for further ways to assist horticulture.
Last year was not a good year for the industry. We saw a combination of a £51 million decline in the value of horticultural production and rises in costs and overheads. With the coming of the free market at the beginning of 1992, it is even more important that steps are taken now to enable the horticultural industry to prepare itself for the challenges of a fair and even market. The Government can assist in a number of ways.
One such way is a more equitable writing-down allowance for specialist horticultural buildings. The sophisticated equipment involved has a short working life and should therefore have a short writing-down period. I understand that progress is being made, and I should be grateful for an indication of the timing and likely outcome of those negotiations.
Another is the requirement for local planning authorities to be made aware of the needs of horticulture when considering redevelopment proposals. That is particularly necessary when development is required to meet the needs of new health regulations or the demand for improved standards from supermarkets or other customers.
The removal of all barriers to free trade within the European Community raises other potential problems. There is already a considerable trade in plant material within the Community, and I welcome the opportunities that further deregulation will bring. However, there is stil concern over Community plant health legislation. Britain is entering that arena, having already established a quality reputation because we enjoy one of the highest plant health regimes in Europe. It is essential that that is not diluted in any way.
The British horticultural trade strongly supports the Commission's proposals relating to plant health. They support both the registration of growers and the regular inspection of premises. They are happy that plants should be inspected at the point of production, rather than at national borders, and they like the idea of plants that are moving beyond a certain local zone carrying a passport.

One would hope, incidentally, that that would be in the form of a label showing details of the source, inspection and validity of registration.
In theory, all those measures will preserve the existing high plant health standards in the United Kingdom. The problem arises in the practical implementation of regulations. It is essential that other countries are not allowed to treat lightly the necessary details of inspection, registration and implementation of plant passports.
That raises a number of points. First, assuming that growers will be licensed to issue their own passports after inspection, we need to ensure that there are sufficient inspectors to police the standards set. I understand that, although there are to be national inspectors, only four inspectors are proposed from the Community. Can my hon. Friend give some assurance that standards will be maintained throughout the Community?
Secondly, I believe that there will be charges for inspections. How will my hon. Friend ensure that certain Governments do not subsidise those charges, thereby putting British growers at a competitive disadvantage?
I am also concerned that too much detail is being left to member states. Although I welcome that in many other areas of Community activity, we must be extremely careful in this instance. Plant material has many problems that are not shared by inanimate objects. It is vital that all member states adhere to the highest health standards, as determined by the Community. Failure to do so could lead to the importation of diseased plant stock, which could devastate our horticultural industry, gardens and parks. I should be grateful for the Minister's views on how the Community proposes to maintain those standards.
Finally, it is important to get the balance right between an effective system and one that can operate with the minimum of bureaucracy. We do not want to see growers burdened with extensive and expensive form-filling. We must ensure that passports are such that they can be incorporated into existing commercial labels: accepted botanical and horticultural systems are used when naming plants; and costs are clearly apportioned in the regulations.
I realise that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been very firm and supportive on these measures during the negotiations. I urge that the Minister continues to insist on the highest health standards with the lowest bureaucratic fuss.
The changes taking place in eastern Europe affect all parts of our lives, including horticulture. One issue of relevance to the industry is the price set under the association agreements for soft fruit grown in eastern Europe. It is important that these are not set at below realistic commercial levels. To do so would be to the detriment of fruit growers both in the east and in the European Community. I know that my hon. Friend has fought hard on that issue, and I hope that he will continue to be firm in negotiations and resist the erroneous argument that artificially low prices would benefit producers. It is simply not true.
There are a number of domestic matters that are of concern to a large sector of the industry. One such is spray irrigation for container plants. It seems clear that, in this sector, legislation has not kept in line with advances in horticultural production technique. Spray irrigation is controlled by the Water Resources Act 1963 and the subsequent Spray Irrigation (Definition) Order 1965. Those regulations took into account the need of crops that


were not growing out in open fields and would be unable to survive without artificial irrigation. In those days, that meant plants under cover—for example, in greenhouses or under cloches. The order exempted those crop-growing methods from the regulations controlling the level of irrigation.
Since the late 1960s, we have seen the growth of container production, which has revolutionised the United Kingdom's nursery stock industry. Currently, £200 million-worth of container plants are produced each year. Those plants are separated from the soil by their containers. Unlike field-grown crops, they cannot draw moisture from the ground. Also, unlike field-grown crops, if they do not receive adequate irrigation every 24 hours during hot weather, they are certain to die quickly.
For the purpose of the 1965 Act, it is clear that container plants fall into the category of protected crops that cannot survive without artificial irrigation. The only reason why the regulations do not already take account of container production is that it was not a factor at the time. I find it hard to believe that there are any reasons not to update these regulations, but if there are, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain them. If not, it is a simple matter to amend the regulations, and I would ask my hon. Friend to do so in time for the 1992 growing season, especially given the prolonged dry season that we are currently experiencing.
The growth in container production is one of the factors affecting the amount of peat used for horticultural purposes. Peat plays a major role in all three main areas of horticulture in the United Kingdom—first, in the retail market, where 1 million cu m are used each year for soil improvement, potting and mulching. Secondly, the amenity market makes use of 300,000 cu m per annum, mainly for soil improvement before landscape planting. Finally, in professional horticulture, growers use between 800,000 and 1·2 million cu m of peat. Those amounts total 2·5 million cu m of peat per year. Putting that into perspective, the total world consumption of peat—mainly for fuel and horticulture—is about 525 million cu m per annum.
British horticulture therefore accounts for under half of 1 per cent. of the total world peat consumption. Horticulture is well aware, however, of the need to reduce peat usage in order to protect habitats not only in Britain but throughout the world. It is taking steps to find alternative sustainable compounds, looking at the three main sectors that I mentioned earlier. In the retail and amenity sectors, peat is used as a soil conditioner and for aesthetic purposes. It is proving far easier to find substitutes for those sectors than for commercial plant production.
For such growers, peat has a number of unique properties which are vital for stock production: it is disease-free; it contains no nutrients, allowing the grower to add these himself to provide a uniform media, which can be adjusted to suit different plants and growing locations; its air-water relationship provides the ideal balance for root growth; and it has ideal water-holding and transfer characteristics. The highly sophisticated peat-based composts necessary for professional modern horticultural production have taken more than 40 years to

develop. It is extremely difficult to find suitable alternatives overnight, although significant moves are being made.
Growers are increasingly using peat alternatives to dilute their composts. Some sectors of the industry, such as glasshouse tomato producers, have stopped using peat completely. But much more research still needs to be done into finding true substitutes for peat. The industry is looking at wood bark, coconut fibre, straw and even sewage sludge. All those potential alternatives—and a number of others—will require several more years of scientific trials before we can be assured that they are reliable and safe. The Horticultural Development Council, which is funded by the growers, is spending £100,000 over the next three years to research the issue. It is important to keep a balanced and realistic view of it.
In the short term, reduction in the use of peat can be and is being made in domestic gardening and professional landscaping. To find a substitute for growers, though, is far more difficult and will take some time. Money is being spent on research, and I am sure that any further contribution that the Government might wish to make will be welcome. In the meantime, I ask my hon. Friend to give strong consideration to the detrimental effects on the economy and employment, particularly in rural communities, of any forced ban or reduction. The industry is working to address this problem, but the answer cannot be found overnight.
Any speech on horticulture has to be wide-ranging to take account of the many activities that fall under its umbrella. I want, therefore, to say just a few words on the situation relating to nurseries that serve the forestry industry. My hon. Friend will be well aware of the disastrous effects of the 1988 Budget on forestry, and hence on many nurseries. It seems ludicrous that, at a time when our farmers are being urged to diversify and when the European Community is spending millions of pounds in subsidy, we should remove the financial incentive for forestry.
Britain is a net importer of timber products. There was a trade deficit in this sector of over £5 billion last year, yet farmers are being paid to leave thousands of acres of land fallow that could be used for forestry.
The 1988 Budget removed the tax allowances on the capital charge of setting up a new forestry enterprise. No other business is treated like that. It is clear that the promise of tax-free returns on felling many years in the future holds little attraction to the cash-starved landowner. Consider what has happened: before the 1988 Budget, new plantings totalled 25,000 hectares. Last season, this figure fell to just 10,000 hectares, of which commercial afforestation is unlikely to exceed 6,000 hectares.
The collapse of the creation of new forests in the past three years has resulted in a rapid reduction in manpower and investment in new equipment for the industry. This has been particularly harmful in the upland areas, already struggling because of the agricultural downturn. The resulting and continuing depopulation will reduce the potential to increase afforestation in the future, should the Government wish to do so.
It is not, however, just the lack of financial incentive that is presenting difficulties for the forestry industry. Potential investment is also deterred by the bureaucracy that surrounds the awarding of forestry grants, so vital to any planting. In particular, there is concern over the


number and range of groups that are consulted before a decision is made by MAFF. Given the problems that exist in encouraging forestry planting, can my hon. Friend explain how the balance is struck between the views of environmental organisations and the need to promote forestry? Can he also explain what steps are being taken to streamline the system of awarding grants?
I would urge that MAFF consider urgently what needs to be done to encourage greater participation in forestry, because the current system is obviously not working satisfactorily.
The range of matters that I have raised tonight demonstrates the diversity of the horticultural industry, but horticulture embraces an even wider industry than that which I have described, and has interests that go far beyond those matters that are the responsibility of my hon. Friend's Ministry. Roles for other Departments, such as the Department of the Environment's influence on our parks, gardens and open spaces, are well known, but the decisions taken by others, such as the Departments of Employment, of Education and Science, and of Trade and Industry, can also affect horticulture. I hope that we can be assured that there is significant co-ordination of horticultural strategy.
We need to ensure that the industry is given the most effective and productive support to help it to meet the challenges and opportunities that the future will bring. As I said earlier, much has been done. I am sure that horticulture can continue to count on the assistance and understanding of my hon. Friend's Ministry, and I look forward to further advances over the coming years.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) asked me a series of questions. She dealt with the depreciation of glasshouses, planning, plant health legislation in the Community, imports from eastern Europe, spray irrigation for container plants, peat and forestry. I shall try to cover as much of that ground as I can, and I shall answer her by letter on any matter that I do not reach in the time left to me tonight.
My hon. Friend raised the question of tax allowances for specialist horticultural buildings. I know that inconsistency in treatment of capital allowances for glasshouses has been of considerable concern to the industry. I have raised this concern with the Treasury, which has agreed that an objective test would be attractive as a basis for determining relief due. It is not straightforward, because a considerable body of case law has to be taken into account. However, my officials have been working closely with the Treasury on the details, and we hope that we will have agreement soon.
Planning policy guidance note 7 issued last month includes guidance to planning authorities on the revised planning controls on agricultural development which came into effect on 2 January. It emphasises the importance of an efficient and flexible agricultural industry and advises planning authorities to take full account of the operational needs of farm businesses, together with environmental considerations, in operating the new controls. Planning authorities are also specifically encouraged to adopt a positive approach generally

towards development proposals which are designed, or necessary, to achieve compliance with new environmental, health and welfare legislation.
On plant health, the twin objectives of maximum health standards and minimum bureaucratic burden will guide our policy in this sector in this crucial year, as they have in the past.
We are seeking simple but effective ways to implement the broad framework agreed by the Agriculture Council in December 1991. On plant passports, we fought a long battle in the Council to get the right for the trade to attach their own passports, under inspectorate control, and I am glad to say that we were successful. We are expanding our plant health and seeds inspectorate accordingly. In practice, we are looking to enable producers to choose between incorporating the necessary information on their existing trade labels or, if it is commercially more convenient, attach a separate label. We are aware of the potential impact of the level of charges that we make on the competitivity of UK growers. No decisions have yet been taken.
On imports, it is clear that the potential risk to the high plant health status that we enjoy lies overwhelmingly outside the Community. The present system of phytosanitary certificates for relevant third country material entering member states will continue. Inspections of these plants and plant products will occur when they enter the Community and plant passports will be issued as appropriate.
There are a number of safeguards of United Kingdom growers in this. First, national inspectorates throughout the Community take their duties seriously, and I do not imagine that any of them would willingly allow a pest to be imported when it should not be there. Then, the Community has provided its own inspectorate, one of whose express tasks is to monitor work of inspectorates across the Community so that full confidence can be placed in them. Exchanges of information and techniques will play an important part in this work. Finally, we have the nature of the regime which the Community presents to third countries. As the EC harmonises the different national import regimes this year, it has the opportunity to take the best from each of them and adopt it for its own. We shall be busy this year making sure that that opportunity is grasped.
One of the tasks of the EC's plant health inspectorate, will be to work with national inspectorates to ensure that inspections of domestic production and third country imports are on the same basis throughout the Community. Of the planned complement of 17 EC inspectors, it is intended that nine should be filled by national inspectors on temporary secondment. This movement between the national and Community inspectorates should help to reinforce the harmonisation process. [Interruption.]
I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spent two days in the Council sitting between the Portuguese and Belgian delegates, who have been determined to show that there is value in the tobacco regime, and that has led to my having to blow my nose.
As regards imports of semi-processed soft fruit from eastern Europe, the United Kingdom Ministers' positive commitment to the legitimate interests of the soft fruit industry is not in doubt: few other issues are raised four times in a year in Councils of Ministers by a single member state.


The Commission maintained safeguard action for 14 months on the criterion of preventing serious disruption of market; this provided some breathing space for longer-term arrangements. The initialled association agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary are due to come into force on 1 March and provide a satisfactory basis for market surveillance and, if necessary, control of imports. The situation in Yugoslavia does not allow for action at the moment.
The Commission is responsible for arranging mechanisms involved in the trigger price system in association agreements. We have made it clear that these should be settled as soon as possible. Minimum prices are important, but so are other details such as speed of transmission of data and compliance with rules on price differentiation for different qualities. As I said in March last year, undercutting prices and failing to maintain market discipline does no good for either the United Kingdom or overseas producers.
Structural measures are matters for the Commission. At the Agriculture Council which concluded yesterday, the Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, undertook to make structural proposals to help the particularly hard-hit Scottish raspberry industry by 1 April. The new group formation grants are designed precisely to help producers to work together in a more loosely knit fashion than under standard producer organisation rules.
I come now to the question of spray irrigation of container-grown plants. We have consulted the National Rivers Authority about the effect that an exemption would have on water resources and other water users and the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, as any amendment to the 1965 order would be made jointly with those Departments. I am pleased to say that those consultations have now been completed and we intend to make an announcement in time for the coming season.
On the question of spray irrigation generally, as hon. Members will be aware, we have not had much rain this winter and in some areas rivers and acquifers are at record low levels. Therefore, I urge all users of spray irrigation to use water wisely, review irrigation programmes, and water only when absolutely necessary. Unless it rains continually between now and May, which is unlikely because it is not the cricket season, it is likely that the N RA will have to impose some restrictions on spray irrigation in East Anglia. We have therefore revised our good irrigation practice leaflet which gives details of an early warning system on restrictions on spray irrigation. That will be distributed to all holders of spray irrigation abstraction licences in the N RA's Anglian region at the end of this month.
I am aware of the importance of peat for some sectors of the horticultural industry. The Government made a commitment 18 months ago to examine the question of peat, and to look in particular at the environmental consequences of peat extraction. I welcome the positive action taken by the horticultural industry to encourage the examination and usage of peat alternatives wherever suitable—in particular, in retail and amenity sectors.
For some major horticultural sectors there is still no suitable alternative available. My Department is funding research into the needs of plants from growing media and we shall be working closely with the Horticultural

Development Council in taking results forward. That will inevitably take time. My aim now is to ensure that the United Kingdom horticultural industry can continue to have access to efficient and economic plant growth media.
The Horticultural Development Council seminar on peat last year made it clear that substantial supplies of peat are available worldwide, and overseas competitors will continue to have access to them. The United Kingdom container and nursery sectors in particular have been successful in expanding their market and there is still considerable scope for further expansion here and overseas. We aim to ensure that United Kingdom growers are not disadvantaged, and can continue to compete with overseas producers on fair and equal terms.
We have made important changes to the support arrangements for forestry, but we have not removed the financial incentive. Public confidence in special forestry tax reliefs as an appropriate instrument for encouraging new planting had all but disappeared by 1988. That is why we changed to a grants-only approach. We are now targeting taxpayers' money in a more open, acceptable, and effective way, in order to deliver a wide range of public benefits.
My hon. Friend mentioned a figure 25,000 hectares for private sector planting in 1988, but that was when new planting by the private sector was at an all-time high. The average for the previous 20 years was just over 15,000 hectares. We must also remember that we reduced the top rate of income tax to 40 per cent. in the 1988 Budget, and that would inevitably have had an influence on potential forestry investors' decisions. Clearly the time had come for change.
Of course the forestry industry has had to adjust to the new approach. Moreover, it has had to do so at a time when we have been experiencing a general downturn in the economy, and I am well aware that for some sectors, such as the nurserymen, the change has been a painful one. But the Government are not complacent about the levels of new planting. The woodland grant scheme was introduced in 1988 with substantial increases in grant levels. With our aim of encouraging more planting on better quality land, we have substantially increased the better land supplement under the woodland grant scheme from £200 per hectare to £400 per hectare for conifers, and £600 for broadleaves. We recently announced a special community woodland supplement of £950 per hectare to encourage the establishment of woodlands close to towns and cities. From 1 April woodland management grants will provide a contribution to the cost of maintaining and improving woodlands and forests. Also from 1 April the successor to the farm woodland scheme will be in place. The farm woodland premium scheme will have enhanced incentives to encourage farmers to establish woodlands on their farms. The new scheme will be easier to understand and simpler to administer. The simplification of bureaucracy is one of my hon. Friend's principal concerns.
It is important that we remove any excessive bureaucracy that may act as a disincentive to farmers and others to plant trees. However, the planting of trees results in significant changes to the countryside, and we must ensure that the right decisions are taken. If our policies are to deliver social and environmental as well as economic benefits, it is essential that the views of the statutory bodies that represent the interests of local people, amenity and wildlife conservation are sought. The Forestry Commission is charged with ensuring that full account is taken of such interests.


We aim at keeping bureaucracy to a minimum and the commission's forestry authority seeks to ensure that in the vast majority of cases consultations with other interests are completed within four weeks. There will inevitably be those that take longer, but that will be because they are sensitive cases deserving of extra special care—not because the system is necessarily wrong.
It is important that we strike a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and those of the environment. The forestry commissioners have a statutory duty to endeavour to achieve such a balance, and the consultation procedures are an important element in that. They are backed up by regular dialogue between the commission and other Government Departments, including those responsible for agriculture and the environment, as well as with bodies representing environmental interests and those of the forestry industry intself.
The reorganisation of the Forestry Commission from 1 April will enable its forestry authority arm to focus more

clearly on private sector planting and thus be better placed to deliver the Government's forestry policies. I am confident that the measures that I have outlined, coupled with an improvement in the economy, will bring a rise in new planting activity.
My hon. Friend covered a wide range of issues. I have endeavoured to respond as fully as I can. I know that my hon. Friend acknowledges that the Government continue to argue strongly the case for this important and innovative industry both in Brussels, where the necessary legislation will shortly come into force and where the final details of some elements have still to be agreed, and in the United Kingdom, where there are great opportunities in the leisure and other industries. I trust that I have given my hon. Friend some assistance.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.